The ridiculous thing is that there's no reason America has to be in decline right now except hubris. The idea that military superiority is the end-all-be-all of power, the idea that every American deserves to be richer than than the average Chinese, etc. We still have amazing natural resources and an amazing entrepreneurial can-do cultural attitude.
The problem is too many resources devoted to skimming the cream at the top of the economy, decade after decade of ill-advised military waste, too much easy money in finance, too gullible of a pacified electorate ready and willing to vote against their interests at the siren song of two parties who claim to represent their values, but spend 95% of their time fundraising and earning it from the private interests who expect their ear.
If as a country we got back to the basics of hard work and innovation and spent less time hand-wringing over our safety and global dominance, and making sure that the GDP is growing at all costs, then I think we'd be well positioned for the coming centuries of increased parity between countries. Insistence that we have to maintain the post-WWII imbalance that America enjoyed due entirely to a accidental confluence of events is foolhardy and will lead to bad decisions.
Imagine if, instead of wars, PMCs, and MRAPs, those trillions had been spent on a thorium "moon shot" and creating a system of individualized education. We wasted the opportunity at the end of the Cold War.
Empire is built on the back of military power and political influence. America's military power is in decline, but more importantly, its political influence is tanking. So the end of empire is here.
At this point it looks like Russia will be the next imperial world power although they are certainly doing it differently than other empires of the past. The Euro-Asian Union is likely to officially hold the crown but as we all know, the size of Russia will mean that it dominates in that Union.
Of course, that empire too will run its course and I wonder if humanity can continue on the road paved by Russia. First, it was the Russian people who ended the Soviet Union and that was a remarkably peaceful event because Russians actually don't like wars. Next, the way that they are building the EAU as a partnership based on the model of the EU holds out some hope that it will be an empire that is less willing to throw its weight around globally. And finally, there has to be an end to empire. We humans have to learn how to share this planet under a different covenant than the one given to us by history. The EU is an example that all countries need to emulate, not by expanding the EU but by applying the EU principles in a broader more global way so that countries are no longer sovereign, but are subject to some sort of regional federation which mediates political and social affairs within and without the countries in the region.
I am not big fan of US imperialism. However, if one examine the facts, it is unlikely that China and Russia/Europe will be the dominant force anytime soon. US still can dominates EVERYTHING if they really wanted to with their military, political and economic power.
If you read
The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century
A high oil price checkmates China (with its large population) but puts money in Putin’s coffers. Going back to the cold war one will see the fall of Soviet Union is engineered by suppression of Oil Prices during the cold war. After 1989 the Soviet reexamine, they agrees that it is cheap oil price that checkmated them.
The trick now has a lot to do with strategy and game theory. I find that to be a bit depressing. As Dave Logan who wrote Tribal Leadership says:
"Culture eats strategy for breakfast."
It would be nice to see the countries foster a kind of culture that will generate wealth for all, instead of devising game theory and strategy to out compete each other or different corporate factions.
Healthy competition is a great instrument on small individual scale, it is idiosyncratic/inefficient on the country scale.
The US hasn't been a traditional empire either though. I think it's arguable that American economic dominance came on the back of the military. After all, we never had governance of any of our imperial "territories". It's hard to tease apart the military and the industrial of the military-industrial complex, but I haven't seen compelling evidence that amazing run the US has had over the last century was primarily dependent on military power.
While I cant say whether this it right or wrong, I find these are articles to be extremely rigid in their determining facts. Just like in the professional world there is a massive difference between becoming an industry player and an extremely dominant company. Through a tech lense, just because snapchat is growing faster than facebook, does not make snapchat Facebook in 2020. The underscoring of the civil growing pains of wealth inequity, western influence amongst consumption, civil unrest and basic quality of life problems (India and China) are never taken into account. Its always, their economy is expanding so given enough time they will win.
In a worse case scenario I see a melding of eastern and western ideals set up against a terrible widening of the wealth inequity. The big sharp edge of a connected economy is that people with power and information asyemtry can now use global communication to economically conquer areas much larger than their immediate reach (list it used to be). The more likely scenario here is a world reset, than a post-American future.
This article does not mention climate change, salinization, loss of glaciers (to feed rivers) contamination of soil and groundwater (from mining or maybe all the fracking the US has been doing) over-irrigation.
These and others are real threats the US faces and will result in reduced fresh water and food.
One reason we are in decline is that for better or worse, our own people are a bit too mercenary for our own good. We have built giant multi-billion dollar corporations, which in theory should make us incredibly more wealthy and powerful, but they are no longer American companies, they are global entities that operate in a multitude of countries.
The jobs and profit don't necessarily stay in the USA either. In many cases the best place to hire workers or produce goods or services is not the USA. There are thousands or millions of talented people elsewhere who can do it better for cheaper and the profit that happens off of the difference is not going to come back to the USA.
If you think in terms of the "global" economy, there is no particular reason why the USA would have to stay #1 forever. Without significant effort, it is almost impossible to imagine how America stays on top for the same reasons that it is hard to believe that either Portugal or Great Britain could maintain such large empires from such tiny countries with limited resources.
I don't think USA goes from #1 to #50 overnight, but dropping to #3 or #5 seems plausible.
The article is giving me a 502, so I'll just say this:
I think the American decline is a lot like the iPad market share.
Most nations today are peaceful market economies who believe in individual rights and trading internationally. As a result, the U.S. is becoming less "indispensable". Is that something to fear, lament...or to celebrate?
No kidding. I dream of a world economy that has grown such that the median Chinese or Indian citizen can enjoy the lifestyle of the median American or Swede today. I don't think people can conceive of the magic that kind of productive bounty would represent.
genuinely curious here, why would a bigger economy mean a better quality of life for regular citizens? who's to say the wealth wouldn't be all concentrated in one area of society? as far as i've understood it, in free market capitalism, companies increase their profits by cutting their marginal costs (like worker's wages)
The basic tenet of free market economics is that people engage in transactions voluntarily and with good information. GDP is a crude measure of all the transactions that take place in an economy, and from the preceding tenet each transaction makes both parties happier (or why would they take part?). It follows that happiness monotonically increases with economic activity.
In theory.
In practice it works pretty well. The happiness isn't evenly distributed, to be sure, but despite all the stuff you've heard about globalization, Monsanto, the rich getting richer, etc. go look at Hans Rosling's presentations and you'll see that everyone is getting better off as economies grow.
The big gripe about jobs being exported overseas is kind of racist. At bottom it says that an American should get a job instead of a better qualified or cheaper foreigner. Why? Is it not OK to look for the best deal you can get? Now, the fact that capital can cross borders and people can't is the real problem. But the same people who want to keep jobs at home also want to close borders to people.
hmm. i agree about the subtle racism of the job-exporting argument. well not that the argument itself is racist, but that it goes hand in hand with xenophobia.
the core problem though is that free trade has created a race to the bottom where american workers' wages will have to drop to meet those of malaysian / mexican / chinese / taiwanese workers, who have a pretty terrible quality of life. we are competing with countries with ingrained caste systems in their cultures, countries that completely accept treating some people like dirt.
the basic tenet of real life is that people have to get jobs to survive, it's not a voluntary choice. yes, the transaction of paying a sweatshop worker $1/day for stapling fabric to a chair will make that worker happier than he would be with $0, but one party is clearly coming out much better in this scenario. when the best deal you can get is based on exploiting a human being, imo, it is not OK to look for the best deal you can get. not moral, at least. we can have capitalism, a robust economy for business, and treat workers ethically as well.
Most empires end through overreach. The tiny nuggets at the center of the Roman, Mongol, Ottoman, British, Austrian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German and Japanese empires couldn't maintain the many nationalities they lorded over. So they collapsed. The Soviets lasted a long time, despite their worthless, murderous government, simply because the Russians had a huge core in the center.
The American empire received its death blow in 1965. The barbarians were not at the gates. There were no gates. The barbarians were invited, by the millions and millions, from hundreds or thousands of miles away, at the bequest of the American elites, to conquer a continent at no risk to themselves. That is what historians--probably Chinese historians--will write about decades from now about America...in mystified, contemptuous marvel at American stupidity.
That's because they were assimilated before the age of PC and multiculturalism. We used to insist that immigrants adopt the same culture and values that we have. Now, we encourage those people to recreate their own cultures here, only better.
Yes, America will decline, yet it'll survive, the only thing that will ever Kill America, is the unrest of it's people, and as long as consumerism keeps everyone complacent and enslaved, people won't rise up, to enact any real change.
It's a fact that short of nuclear war(global suicide), nobody can invade/destroy America militarily, but our presence worldwide, will, and SHOULD end. We need to go back to being neutral and not giving a shit about world affairs, -- people in America are starving, yet we spend trillions to police other countries. -- Some protectionism, and pull-back on military spending would make for a stronger, more private America.
Personally, I'm all for a contracting America, that stops worrying about global affairs, and worries more about feeding, clothing, and putting everyone to work, and combatting poverty at home.
We have real problems here in America such as : A failing war on drugs, Healthcare issues, Education, NSA/Security scandals, Poverty/Unemployment, Securing our borders/ports of entry, Mental Health(school shootings, etc..), Bloated government spending -- gov't should not be allowed to spend more than they bring in via taxes, period - end of discussion.
I say AMEN to the end of America's world domination, and Hello to the era of "let's take care of our own".
> Between 1973 and 2007, oil imports have risen from 36% of energy consumed in the U.S. to 66%.
It's interesting they didn't cite figures from 2007 to 2013 yet they link to them. From their EIA link, it appears we import about as many barrels per month as we did in 1973.
It's an inconvenient truth. The oil boom in this country over the last 6 years seems to go mostly unnoticed by the media, except for the odd article here and there about housing shortages. (Way to find the "problem", media!)
I guess the oil boom doesn't advance the narrative that everything is going wrong for the blue collar workers in the US, that we're completely dependent on foreign oil, that we're not making "good jobs" anymore for people without a college education, etc.
I'm really curious how long it will take for the culture to come around on this one.
The oil boom is real and welcome, and wasn't at all obvious when the article was written in 2010. Unfortunately it only postpones the day of reckoning. We're still dependent on foreign oil, just less so than predicted. Our economy is almost entirely dependent on the amount of oil we can consume.
I'm shocked that CBS would publish such a sober and realistic assessment of how damaging the wars of the past decade have been, and how horrifying the end of the petrodollar will be.
War will not happen between the US and China (2 economies which are inexorably intertwined) for no other reason than it will be exceedingly bad for business.
War will not happen between the US and China (2 economies which are inexorably intertwined) for no other reason than it will be exceedingly bad for business.
One could have said this about the U.S. and Germany in 1927.
I don't think war between the U.S. and China is likely, and I certainly hope it would never happen because no one would win that, but I don't think that argument has historic validity.
>One could have said this about the U.S. and Germany in 1927.
Source?
I read about history sometimes and am a big fan of WW2.
I've never heard Germany and the US being "inexorably intertwined" and find the comparison to China/US almost preposterous given the modern global economy and the feeder/lecher relationships we have now.
People act like their self-identity were dependent on everlasting American super-hegemony. Then trolls like this author come around and push your buttons to make themselves feel important. This author and his stories of futuristic lethal space robot battles mean what to whom? We're all going to be killed by China's space lasers and there's nothing to be done of it? Ok great thanks. Not being #1 means absolutely nothing to me. Lots of fine countries in this world do just fine not being #1.
No one can predict the future, and this is sensationalism and speculation, not reasoned journalism.
Let's talk about the "fall" of the UK. The British have universal healthcare and London is a leading global city. The biggest things that can be said for bad about the UK are (1) that London is extremely expensive, and (2) that the weather sucks. (1) is true but hardly seems to have anything to do with global decline; (2) is easy enough to deal with when you have $50 airfares to Spain and Italy and 5 weeks of vacation required by law.
So... is that what "decline" looks like? It doesn't sound so bad.
The UK certainly did have a period of economic privation that was longer than ours. Ours fit neatly between a stock market crash (1929) and the end of a war (1945) while theirs lingered on for about 15 years longer. That wasn't because the British Empire fell. That was because Britain got thoroughly devastated by Nazi bombing, while we lost one military base in Hawaii. Even the countries that "won" World Wars I and II mostly lost, economically speaking.
Sure, the American Empire is toast. It's already fading in importance, and the economic and cultural malaise that OP argues come along with imperial collapse are already happening. In fact, the pattern of ignominious military misadventure didn't start in 2003 with Iraq; the war in Vietnam was worse. Does this mean that we're headed for economic collapse or World War III? No. Sure, those things could happen. I don't see them as especially likely.
The American Empire is unwinding because nation-states themselves are becoming less relevant. The global elite (which includes many highly wealthy Americans, but has no allegiance to any specific country or ideology) has pushed aside the national elites. They don't matter anymore, except for ceremonial purposes. The rise of the global elite (the WEF fuckheads) isn't a good thing. For all of its flaws, the WASP aristocracy was a hell of a lot more virtuous and pro-democratic (and, more to the point, it gave a shit what happened to the U.S.) than the new elite of Russian blatnoy-oligarchs and the oil sheikhs from countries where it's legal to fuck a 9-year-old (if you're married to her). Where this global elite is headed, and what the rest of us in the 99.99% will have to do with or to them is another discussion, and I don't care to have it...
This idea that the U.S. is destined for economic ruin, however, has no basis. Sure, there are some nasty problems we're going to face, nationally and globally. But there has never been a time in history when that wasn't the case.
While the overall trajectory maybe right, the comparisons between the likes of USSR is really incorrect. The actual "fall" of the USSR came at the dissolution of the lands conquered by the old Russian Empire. The tensions driving that, besides obvious greed for money and power, were that those pieces weren't always together to begin with. Russia, Belarus and most of Ukraine were, but much of the rest was absorbed through violence. Even today, Ukraine's west and east are at odds with each other - one part wanting to come back to Russia and the other wanting to go back to Poland/Europe.
The military strength is likely to depend a lot more on unmanned machinery in the next few decades rather than on human soldiers. If true, that would erode much of the advantage China and India hold from the sheer numbers stand point.
Economically, China may very well develop to be #1. That said, they do have a long road ahead of them in terms of really sustaining their own buying behaviors. Currently, US is #1 through much of its own consumption. This is a very remarkable feat. The extremely robust domestic market is not something most other countries can really boast. Currently, both India and China need others to consume a very large share of what they produce. While I'm not really sure of all the measures McKinsey analysts are using here, it is a good illustration of just how much China still depends on exports:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_pictu...
The article does note a shift to more finished goods export and focus on the internal market, it is far from a complete process. Incidentally, these shifts and the strengthening of the middle class that seems so vital, will also likely bring about more political unrest.
India is likely to experience social issues as the population gets wealthier, as shown by the recent debacle with the Indian diplomat and her house servant...
China's biggest challenge is ecology and with that, natural resources. It is a mountainous country with human habitation mostly in narrow valleys except for a few large river valleys and deltas. And it has too many people. This is likely to lead to ecological collapse in one way or another. One way to stave that off would be to subordinate themselves to Russia so that Russia provides raw materials and therefore China doesn't have to dig up so many mountains, but that doesn't solve all the ecological issues.
Eh... more likely China and Russia will end up going to war over Siberian resources. Russia has a huge Chinese immigration problem on their hands and China has provoked skirmishes even in Soviet times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
It's difficult to make a comparison to the British since as the British empire flagged, they went ahead and hitched their fortunes to the rising American "empire". I don't think its unreasonable to say that Europe (and much of Western Europe) has benefited much from their attachment to the "American way", despite whatever differences there are between all the countries.
The question is: what happens when empires fall? And there is no answer to that without knowing that replaces them. The British lost prestige, and actual power, but gained a favoured seat at the new game's table. Presuming a world dominated by China, where does America fit in? I have no idea. I agree that its likely -not- going to be catastrophic, but there are just so many unknowns, and so much depends on exactly what kind landing there is.
And as inciting as the idea of the global elite who lord over us regardless of our nationality... I don't think the Chinese would appreciate a bunch of white guys "running" the show afterwards. Just as generations of Western Europeans and Americans where able to enter regions and dominate or co-opt the local elite through superior resources and means, the Chinese will do the same.
This is my opinion. The world is built on American financial institutions such as World Bank, World Trade Organization. These entities ensure American dominance when it comes to economic power. China maybe taking the 2nd spot, but that's where it ends. The stage is always rigged so that United States prevails. The rules change in favor of United States, at the whim of it's administration.
Then comes the military power. No other country has had as much experience as the united states. Air superiority still remains to be the most essential battlefield in any war. Those who control the skies determine where their territories end. The United States by far has a great deal of experience in this field and it's spending on military hardware eclipses the entire world by many times.
The perfect empire is the one we can't see, and that is the empire of US dollar. As long as we depend on oil for energy output, so will the world's dependence on American dollar.
But at least the World Bank is blatantly pro-American. Every World Bank president has been American. The Chief Economist up to 2000 are all pretty much American (one Israeli + one dual Israeli/American).
If you consider that bulk of cotton is produced in African nations but they have very little chance in getting paid at the rate American cotton output gets through subsidies from the government, poverty is inevitable. If the subsidies disappear, the prices will be allowed to correct and those African nations would be able to lift themselves out of poverty with the earnings. The free market is not at all governed by supply and demand, it's being interfered with the country with the most power. It doesn't end there, by increasing the price of an essential commodity, it's able to deny poorer countries from accessing it without not going into debt with World Bank, and with very little ability to repay the debt, the country is wide open for American corporations to set up whatever operation they can be allowed to by bribing that country's elite, and extracting any other remaining resources in that country or by blood. The men and women in those countries wearing American uniform, firing American guns, flying American fighter jets, fighting along side with America's war.
It's essentially how pimps work by coercing prostitutes into a large debt they can never repay, and must work the rest of their lives to pay off the debt, with a large amount of it being paid to the biggest pimps in the area, and tribute payments to the king of all pimps.
It's cleverly hidden through the language of international economics, and things like "freedom and democracy" for all parts of the world. Of course money and freedom sounds a lot better than trying to sell communism, but I personally believe, it's still a form of world domination. The marginal materialistic life we enjoy in North America and the West, someone on the other side of the world is dying for it, because the market favors those with the greatest power, and by which the rest of the world must play by.
Nevertheless, I choose the lesser evil between the two evils. Democracy and freedom it is because communism produces barbarians.
The problem is too many resources devoted to skimming the cream at the top of the economy, decade after decade of ill-advised military waste, too much easy money in finance, too gullible of a pacified electorate ready and willing to vote against their interests at the siren song of two parties who claim to represent their values, but spend 95% of their time fundraising and earning it from the private interests who expect their ear.
If as a country we got back to the basics of hard work and innovation and spent less time hand-wringing over our safety and global dominance, and making sure that the GDP is growing at all costs, then I think we'd be well positioned for the coming centuries of increased parity between countries. Insistence that we have to maintain the post-WWII imbalance that America enjoyed due entirely to a accidental confluence of events is foolhardy and will lead to bad decisions.