4 ms·

The USA is at 'peak' , we can roughly say this, not because of anything America is doing, but because the 'rest of the world' is coming online. 50 years ago th

The USA is at 'peak' , we can roughly say this, not because of anything America is doing, but because the 'rest of the world' is coming online. 50 years ago there was 'America', the 'Soviets' and 'Europe'. Everything else was a footnote. What we've seen with China 'coming out of nowhere' in the last 25 years is about to happen 4x with the rest of the world. America and Europe's share of global economy is falling fast, and it simply has to do with electricity, plumbing, democracy, knowledge and productivity gains in the rest of the world. India is coming on a little slowly, but surely. Pakistan is 180 Million people. Nigeria almost that - and they have oil. Africa is a billion people. There are a lot of Asians outside of China, India and Japan. As they start to become connected to the global economy, relative power shift will happen. I don't see the emergence of any new 'superpower' and America will likely remain the only 'superpower' in the classical sense, but it won't be as powerful as it is today - relatively speaking. If you look at the growth of Japan after WW2 - a period of fast growth, then slowing down as it approaches parity with the west - this is what the underdeveloped world will look like, but a little slower. Also - a very important point - a lot of real growth is not measured in the GDP. For example, the value that is created by governments is measured simply in 'government spending'. But $1 of gov. spending hopefully creates more value than $1! For example, if the US Gov spent $50B and created this amazing national public transport system that everyone used, and cost next to nothing - the 'economic surplus' would be massive, but the GDP would directly be down. Why? Because the only thing that would count towards the GDP would be the $50B spent by the gov, not the $Trillion in value derived from it. Obviously, there would be indirect business benefits ... point being - the GDP is not necessarily the best way to measure things for many obvious reasons.

e12e 10y ago
> I don't see the emergence of any new 'superpower' and America will likely remain the only 'superpower' in the classical sense, but it won't be as powerful as it is today - relatively speaking. Maybe. But the trend towards privatising military force could end up accelerating USA's slide down in terms of military power. If we are indeed moving back to the "normal" (historically speaking) "neo medieval" world were military force is generally mercenary and not national standing armies - coupled with the commodization of advanced military technology - the world could radically change quite quickly. Maybe the USA won't be able to pay its contractors - and China and/or Russia can? Maybe China will restructure the PLA as the world's biggest military contractor? I don't really think you are wrong - but it can be tricky to predict the future. Perhaps especially the sudden stumbles we seem to make every so often as a species back into new dark ages and decent into chaos.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "But the trend towards privatising military force could end up accelerating USA's slide down in terms of military power. " + This is a very marginal thing. " If we are indeed moving back to the "normal" (historically speaking) "neo medieval" world were military force is generally mercenary and not national standing armies" + This is not happening. Don't worry about it. Listen - war is too expensive. It is only economically advantageous when the parties are not interconnected. Some American businesses can economically from a war in Iraq by getting big contracts ... but a war with any real nation would cause massive upheaval in markets. The moment Brexit happened - it was a big shock to markets - and that was a small thing. 90% of people and businesses 'lose' in a big war, so it's very, very unlikely that China, Russia, USA get involved directly in a war - it's just too costly for everyone. USA is China's #1 customer. The only 'rising military power' that will make a difference is China. Everyone else - won't matter. It's also very, very expensive to challenge the Americans in any way, even regionally, so the only actors that will do it are non-state entities, i.e. insurgents like Al Qeda etc.. The 'big shift' over the next 50 years is that 4 billion people who are not even on the radar today are going from $2 a day, to $50 a day in terms of GDP.
  - e12e 10y ago
    Iraq was "a real nation" before the first gulf war. Indeed, as you point out - the US lost that war by any sensible measure - but that doesn't mean the same mistakes won't be repeated. And the gulf operations were something of a 50/50 split between contractors and military personnel, at least towards the end of the protracted conflict. Don't forget that "the end of war" as proclaimed after world war one - because a new world war would be too costly, and too horrible for anyone to contemplate. Of course no one will start a war they think they will lose. You start wars you are "certain" you will win. And then they escalate. And escalate. > The 'big shift' over the next 50 years is that 4 billion people who are not even on the radar today are going from $2 a day, to $50 a day in terms of GDP. I absolutely agree that this is going to be the biggest change. With accompanying logistics, new (political and economical) battles over water rights and so on. If there's a new "private" war, I'm guessing it will start with a large contractor being hired by some regime to "calm down" "unreasonable unrest" over stealing natural resources and handing them over to corporations, like for example privatizing water (or as one can see in Niger, privatizing oil). I certainly hope we won't see a third world war, but I'm also afraid of people that seem to think that large scale war is "unlikely". Nothing in history suggests that it is. [ed: And "insurgents" are likely to always be proxy wars. The US created the modern resistance in Afghanistan to fight Sovjet power, and then end up fighting that same insurgency, now supported by Saudis, which are allies on paper.]

e12e 10y ago

> I don't see the emergence of any new 'superpower' and America will likely remain the only 'superpower' in the classical sense, but it won't be as powerful as it is today - relatively speaking. Maybe. But the trend towards privatising military force could end up accelerating USA's slide down in terms of military power. If we are indeed moving back to the "normal" (historically speaking) "neo medieval" world were military force is generally mercenary and not national standing armies - coupled with the commodization of advanced military technology - the world could radically change quite quickly. Maybe the USA won't be able to pay its contractors - and China and/or Russia can? Maybe China will restructure the PLA as the world's biggest military contractor? I don't really think you are wrong - but it can be tricky to predict the future. Perhaps especially the sudden stumbles we seem to make every so often as a species back into new dark ages and decent into chaos.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"But the trend towards privatising military force could end up accelerating USA's slide down in terms of military power. " + This is a very marginal thing. " If we are indeed moving back to the "normal" (historically speaking) "neo medieval" world were military force is generally mercenary and not national standing armies" + This is not happening. Don't worry about it. Listen - war is too expensive. It is only economically advantageous when the parties are not interconnected. Some American businesses can economically from a war in Iraq by getting big contracts ... but a war with any real nation would cause massive upheaval in markets. The moment Brexit happened - it was a big shock to markets - and that was a small thing. 90% of people and businesses 'lose' in a big war, so it's very, very unlikely that China, Russia, USA get involved directly in a war - it's just too costly for everyone. USA is China's #1 customer. The only 'rising military power' that will make a difference is China. Everyone else - won't matter. It's also very, very expensive to challenge the Americans in any way, even regionally, so the only actors that will do it are non-state entities, i.e. insurgents like Al Qeda etc.. The 'big shift' over the next 50 years is that 4 billion people who are not even on the radar today are going from $2 a day, to $50 a day in terms of GDP.
- e12e 10y ago
  Iraq was "a real nation" before the first gulf war. Indeed, as you point out - the US lost that war by any sensible measure - but that doesn't mean the same mistakes won't be repeated. And the gulf operations were something of a 50/50 split between contractors and military personnel, at least towards the end of the protracted conflict. Don't forget that "the end of war" as proclaimed after world war one - because a new world war would be too costly, and too horrible for anyone to contemplate. Of course no one will start a war they think they will lose. You start wars you are "certain" you will win. And then they escalate. And escalate. > The 'big shift' over the next 50 years is that 4 billion people who are not even on the radar today are going from $2 a day, to $50 a day in terms of GDP. I absolutely agree that this is going to be the biggest change. With accompanying logistics, new (political and economical) battles over water rights and so on. If there's a new "private" war, I'm guessing it will start with a large contractor being hired by some regime to "calm down" "unreasonable unrest" over stealing natural resources and handing them over to corporations, like for example privatizing water (or as one can see in Niger, privatizing oil). I certainly hope we won't see a third world war, but I'm also afraid of people that seem to think that large scale war is "unlikely". Nothing in history suggests that it is. [ed: And "insurgents" are likely to always be proxy wars. The US created the modern resistance in Afghanistan to fight Sovjet power, and then end up fighting that same insurgency, now supported by Saudis, which are allies on paper.]