4 ms·
That's a good test when viewing these arguments for the "next superpower". I'd always ask the author; what do you feel made the USA successful in the past? Why
by johngalt 17y ago
That's a good test when viewing these arguments for the "next superpower". I'd always ask the author; what do you feel made the USA successful in the past? Why has that changed?
Most of the American declinism supporters still cite WWII as the only reason for American economic ascendancy. I'm skeptical that markets take 65 years to correct.
- Quarrelsome 17y ago65 years to correct? Consider the British Empire in 1914 and then again in 1971. It's more or less the same for all European nations. We lost our minds, a generation, many of our cities and all of our empires. 65 years is not going to correct that, it was a one-way street. Do you have ANY understanding of the state of Europe's economy following WW2? We were heading for WW3 after the US pulled the mat on the debt repayments. Luckily Marshal understood this and hence the Marshal Plan prevented WW3 in Europe.
- tman 17y agoEurope was heading to WWIII in 1947? I don't see it.
- Daniel_Newby 17y agoTry looking from the east side of the Berlin wall.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoOk, but all those empires, what were they built on? They were built on the megalomaniac greed of a bunch of predatory monarchs and their clerical stooges. None of it came from the people. That's very different from today's US.
- ErrantX 17y agoNot completely. A lot of it was built by explorers and entrepreneurs. There is a difference nowadays; but lots of parallels too.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoAdmirable as they may be individually, they were part of a very tiny social class and their funding came from the ruling cleptomaniac families.
- ErrantX 17y agoYou dont see this today either?
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoI do see it, but access to opportunities is now much broader than it was in Europe's aristocratic past.
- Quarrelsome 17y agoWhat, like the Bushes?
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoI'm afraid it used to be much worse, even if it's hard to believe after having just suffered through the Bush years. I grant you that ;-)
- astrec 17y agoToday's empires are built on the megalomanic greed of a bunch of predatory chief executives and their political stooges.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoOnly if you think that our democracy is a sham. I don't think that's entirely the case, and I don't see how that prevents broad access to the resources needed to start a startup.
- krakensden 17y agoAmerica's startups are an epiphenomenon. Chevron had a 10 BILLION dollar profit last year. This was a disaster- it earned 24 billion in 2008.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoAll existing companies were once startups and almost none of them were started by aristocracy.
- bl4k 17y agoYou are correct, the aristocracy didn't start these companies, they just bankrolled them
- rms 17y agoOur democracy is at most only 50% a sham. I think if we're looking for scapegoats for all of the problems of society, we should go a higher level and blame corporate personhood itself rather than individual sociopathic executives.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoCorporate personhood is a worthy discussion. But it doesn't mean that corporations lack legitimacy as bad as the kings and queens of the past.
- arethuza 17y agoThe British Empire was largely built from commercial interests - look at the East India Company and the Opium Wars.
- stonemetal 17y agoWhat has changed is the easy part. It is Richard Hilton vs Paris Hilton. Born to power and an easy life has made the US soft. The average US citizen demands that the government fixes their problems.