6 ms·
> Not my area of expertise but I'd imagine it's a function of population and interconnectedness of economies. So the population growth rate of the U.S. is decl
by freyr 11y ago
> Not my area of expertise but I'd imagine it's a function of population and interconnectedness of economies.
So the population growth rate of the U.S. is declining, and many developed nations now have negative population growth rate.
> I do see that some nation economies will be hurt and others helped as everything will probably revert to a mean to some degree.
Right, so would you expect the U.S. economy to be helped or hurt by the decline of its economic dominance and a reversion to the mean?
> What evidence is contrary?
No nation, empire, or civilization in history has managed to sustain global economic dominance indefinitely.
There are probably many events that could cause the U.S. economy to contract. But even if the U.S. economy continues to grow, though at a much slower pace than competitors or the global economy, I just don't expect the U.S. markets to continue rising in a meaningful way. People in this thread are claiming that local markets always rise as though they're stating a law of physics, and it's absurd.
- crucialfelix 11y ago> No nation, empire, or civilization in history has managed to sustain global economic dominance indefinitely. The US stock market is made up of mostly multi-national companies. Its a financial center for earth, not an isolated economy. If we talk about civilization at this point in time then its the global civilization of earth we are talking about.
- freyr 11y ago> The US stock market is ... a financial center for earth This is true currently. But again, there's no reason to assume this will continue forever. > If we talk about civilization at this point in time then its the global civilization of earth we are talking about. Nice idea, but I'm unconvinced. What does "the global civilization of earth" even mean? The world always seems more connected than the day before. Of course, in 1914 it seemed more connected than ever before. In 1939 too. Yet our global civilization split apart at the seams and we were thrown into two of the most devastating wars ever. And both hugely impacted the economies of the nations involved. The U.S. has been at war almost continuously for the last 25 years. With whom? The global civilization of Earth? Even if you restrict your perspective to purely economic matters, to a "global economy," this seems dubious. If we truly have a global economy, it's one disproportionately controlled by a single nation -- a situation many nations are probably unsatisfied with, but currently unable to change. So you've reached the conclusion that other nations are now content to sit back and let the U.S. run the global economy forever. Where's the evidence? Just because no other country has been able to challenge the U.S.'s dominance over the world economy in the past 50 years, doesn't mean they've accepted this as the natural state of affairs.