4 ms·

Good read, thanks! The argument is well established except that the author omitted one crucial factor, which is, US became the only super power in the world in

by wangii 11y ago

Good read, thanks! The argument is well established except that the author omitted one crucial factor, which is, US became the only super power in the world in recent two decades. At the time the Constitution was drafted, nobody in his/her wildest dream that US would become the dominant power in this solar system. With the existence of outer threaten, branches (or parties) were driven to cooperate for their very own existence. The threaten was removed, so gone the drive. My argument is also supported by one common phenomena in the business world: it's really rare that a successful company enjoys no political infight. The logic behind is the same: when insiders can obtain more benefit through relative cheap inner fight, they are no longer interested in relatively expensive, difficult and risky company growing strategy. Is there anything missing/wrong in my logic?

maxerize 11y ago
I don't see why only recent times are indicative of this. America had few outside enemies in e.g. the 1920s, and yet the inner conflicts (Teapot Dome, Steel and Railroad strikes) during those years were nothing like our recent ones.
- wangii 11y ago
  Maybe I should put it this way: US already reached its peak status, and it's very difficult to even find a way or area to "grow". In 1920s, although US became an economic super power, there were still plenty of room to grow in the area of international political system.
adventured 11y ago
The US became the sole super power after WW2. Soviet Russia from 1946-1990 was never a super power, it was in fact weaker in every objective respect than Russia has been the last ten years. Most of the image of it being a super power was propaganda that turned out to be completely false - namely that they had a powerful economy and global military projection ability. Nearly all of their economic output figures were fraudulent. That fraud became apparent with the collapse. This was a country that for 40 years couldn't even keep its grocery stores stocked properly. On a subjective basis, for about 20 years the USSR seemed powerful, but only when compared militarily to Western Europe, Japan and China which had all been decimated. Compared to the US they were not. By 1960-1965 West Germany's economy was already bigger than the USSR. By 1965, the US economy (possessing ~50% of all global manufacturing) was at least five times larger than the USSR economy. From 1950-1990, the USSR's economy was highly isolated, low on innovation and weak, susceptible to constant threats of famine and shock (to say nothing of the things Stalin did domestically). You could see that both in their technology and products. The US post WW2 was a global export monster, highly connected, with a very inventive economy, to go with the global reserve currency. The US achieved by 1970 a median household income of about $45,000 (in 2014 dollars) - something nations are only beginning to catch up to now. Needless to say, the USSR median household income was a small fraction of that. After WW2 the US had a truly global military position. It had North and South America almost exclusively as its sphere of influence. It had military bases in Japan and Germany. It had a system of global alliances spanning from Canada to the UK to France to Germany to Australia to Japan. The USSR had nothing even remotely like that, their few actual allies were weak and fragile.
- bane 11y ago
  You can also argue that the policy of containment, however painful, worked. Even though "Communist" governments at one time or another controlled the majority of the landmass in Euraisa, the broken economic ideology, lack of trade, and heavy industries/military first policies (caused by a defensive stance against Western containment) meant that their economies could never develop in meaningful ways. The Soviet policy of expendable buffer countries meant that there was little incentive to develop those territories beyond administrative and military control further impacted meaningful economic development. The U.S. on the other hand tried to improve the general conditions of its vassal/buffer states with broad economic incentives -- namely trade access to the enormous and growing U.S. market, at levels far beyond heavy industry and military cooperation -- all the way down to the much larger consumer market. This policy generated tremendous wealth, which was then turned into better militaries. In the cases where local conditions didn't make that possible, the U.S. simply installed a dictator and funded the local military directly -- almost Soviet style. I think it's important to not think of the U.S. in isolation, just like Soviet Russia can't be thought of without the USSR, the Eastern-Bloc and other Communist allies, the U.S. has to be thought of in similar terms. The U.S. had/has vanguard allies in the Five-Eye countries (U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) each able to contribute military units at the strength of U.S. units, "vassal" states like Germany, Japan, Israel and South Korea -- where the U.S. could stage its military at will, and with each offering robust defensive militaries ensuring permanent beachheads, second-tier allies like Iceland, Italy, Philippines, Colombia, etc. that enabled the U.S. to have robust military supply lines. The USSR had nothing of the order or integration of this global network. A network so large that it spawned tremendous technological innovation in order to manage communication, monitoring and logistics -- pieces of which broke off to form the Internet. There's no reason to believe that the U.S. and its sphere won't continue to follow this kind of containment policy against states that it doesn't get along with. But economic prosperity is tempting, and China's more permissive environment and massive economic potential can be a tempting ally disgruntled parts of the sphere might turn to, allowing China (who has sufficient political willingness and economic means) to develop into its own super power. My bet is that the next country that will matter after that will be India.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  I have a hard time with a definition of "superpower" that doesn't count a country that can essentially wipe the human species off the planet with a few button presses.
HiYaBarbie 11y ago
In reality, it's not that complicated. Here's all you need to know about the Constitution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

by wangii 11y ago

maxerize 11y ago

I don't see why only recent times are indicative of this. America had few outside enemies in e.g. the 1920s, and yet the inner conflicts (Teapot Dome, Steel and Railroad strikes) during those years were nothing like our recent ones.

wangii 11y ago
Maybe I should put it this way: US already reached its peak status, and it's very difficult to even find a way or area to "grow". In 1920s, although US became an economic super power, there were still plenty of room to grow in the area of international political system.

adventured 11y ago

The US became the sole super power after WW2. Soviet Russia from 1946-1990 was never a super power, it was in fact weaker in every objective respect than Russia has been the last ten years. Most of the image of it being a super power was propaganda that turned out to be completely false - namely that they had a powerful economy and global military projection ability. Nearly all of their economic output figures were fraudulent. That fraud became apparent with the collapse. This was a country that for 40 years couldn't even keep its grocery stores stocked properly. On a subjective basis, for about 20 years the USSR seemed powerful, but only when compared militarily to Western Europe, Japan and China which had all been decimated. Compared to the US they were not. By 1960-1965 West Germany's economy was already bigger than the USSR. By 1965, the US economy (possessing ~50% of all global manufacturing) was at least five times larger than the USSR economy. From 1950-1990, the USSR's economy was highly isolated, low on innovation and weak, susceptible to constant threats of famine and shock (to say nothing of the things Stalin did domestically). You could see that both in their technology and products. The US post WW2 was a global export monster, highly connected, with a very inventive economy, to go with the global reserve currency. The US achieved by 1970 a median household income of about $45,000 (in 2014 dollars) - something nations are only beginning to catch up to now. Needless to say, the USSR median household income was a small fraction of that. After WW2 the US had a truly global military position. It had North and South America almost exclusively as its sphere of influence. It had military bases in Japan and Germany. It had a system of global alliances spanning from Canada to the UK to France to Germany to Australia to Japan. The USSR had nothing even remotely like that, their few actual allies were weak and fragile.

bane 11y ago
You can also argue that the policy of containment, however painful, worked. Even though "Communist" governments at one time or another controlled the majority of the landmass in Euraisa, the broken economic ideology, lack of trade, and heavy industries/military first policies (caused by a defensive stance against Western containment) meant that their economies could never develop in meaningful ways. The Soviet policy of expendable buffer countries meant that there was little incentive to develop those territories beyond administrative and military control further impacted meaningful economic development. The U.S. on the other hand tried to improve the general conditions of its vassal/buffer states with broad economic incentives -- namely trade access to the enormous and growing U.S. market, at levels far beyond heavy industry and military cooperation -- all the way down to the much larger consumer market. This policy generated tremendous wealth, which was then turned into better militaries. In the cases where local conditions didn't make that possible, the U.S. simply installed a dictator and funded the local military directly -- almost Soviet style. I think it's important to not think of the U.S. in isolation, just like Soviet Russia can't be thought of without the USSR, the Eastern-Bloc and other Communist allies, the U.S. has to be thought of in similar terms. The U.S. had/has vanguard allies in the Five-Eye countries (U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) each able to contribute military units at the strength of U.S. units, "vassal" states like Germany, Japan, Israel and South Korea -- where the U.S. could stage its military at will, and with each offering robust defensive militaries ensuring permanent beachheads, second-tier allies like Iceland, Italy, Philippines, Colombia, etc. that enabled the U.S. to have robust military supply lines. The USSR had nothing of the order or integration of this global network. A network so large that it spawned tremendous technological innovation in order to manage communication, monitoring and logistics -- pieces of which broke off to form the Internet. There's no reason to believe that the U.S. and its sphere won't continue to follow this kind of containment policy against states that it doesn't get along with. But economic prosperity is tempting, and China's more permissive environment and massive economic potential can be a tempting ally disgruntled parts of the sphere might turn to, allowing China (who has sufficient political willingness and economic means) to develop into its own super power. My bet is that the next country that will matter after that will be India.
ceejayoz 11y ago
I have a hard time with a definition of "superpower" that doesn't count a country that can essentially wipe the human species off the planet with a few button presses.

HiYaBarbie 11y ago

In reality, it's not that complicated. Here's all you need to know about the Constitution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE