5 ms·

How about US 1.) having the biggest economy in the world, and growing 3% per year 2.) having the biggest worldly influential movie business 3.) having the bi

How about US 1.) having the biggest economy in the world, and growing 3% per year 2.) having the biggest worldly influential movie business 3.) having the biggest worldly influential video game business 4.) having 40% of assets in the world 5.) having most of the innovations in technology 6.) having most of the biggest corporations 7.) having the most brands 8.)......etcetcetc

astrodust 9y ago
Like many external observers I'm astonished at how many Americans take their position for granted. This is a list of things that can go away in a heartbeat. Someone living in Victorian England couldn't possibly imagine a world where Britain wasn't at the absolute centre and on in charge of everything, yet within two generations that power had all but faded.
- frandroid 9y ago
  > can go away in a heartbeat > within two generations
  - astrodust 9y ago
    "If there's one thing Americans need to learn it's a hundred years is not a long time, just as Europeans need to learn a hundred miles is not a long distance."
- pishpash 9y ago
  It took two wars for Britain to slink back. But Britain is also inherently limited by its size. The US has a rather stronger foundation and unlikely to really go anywhere even if no longer absolutely dominant at some future time.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    The current political entity that is the "United States of America" is geographically larger, but it's not as assured in its dominance as you think. What if Texas splits off and takes a few states with it? What if California decides to bail as well? That'd put a lot of pressure on New England, which might just call it quits, too, rather than be saddled with the South. A single thing could lead to the complete erosion of the United States as we know it, and politically it would never recover. If you think this is impossible, that it will never happen, the Austro-Hungarian empire was once like this, geographically and economically dominant, yet it fell apart surprisingly quickly. Consider: The United States has only fought only a handful of wars on its own soil and a few of those went really badly. A large country is harder to defend, and if the entire might of the US military can't keep a lid on a place like Afghanistan or Iraq what hope does it have holding together half a continent?
    - pishpash 9y ago
      Austria-Hungry was cobbled together in a "personal union," and ended when the notion of how states are built shifted to nationalities. Barring such a large shift in statecraft which would affect every country, I don't see the US breaking apart, and it wouldn't be because the military could/could not keep it so, but because there is no real secessionist movement in the US today. There are good reasons for this, one is unity of culture compared to most other countries in the world, and another is federalism to tide over the differences. Things could change if say, cloning started happening and the South couldn't handle it, or Trump became a dictator-for-life and institutional means didn't stop him, but somebody would have to change their way of life for secession to be seriously on the table again. Why would California or Texas break away today? Internal economic dynamics are beneficial enough to keep them in. Things like language differences that might break apart other centralized countries simply aren't issues (some localities print their official stuff in Spanish, Vietnamese, whatever, others don't; ethnic radio stations and TV stations exist if you want to have them, nobody cares; you can incorporate your own cities if there are enough of "you" living together, whatever "you" are, and you can elect one of your own as mayor, it's a big country). During the Civil War there was still a strong notion of states' rights, today there is not and the country is a lot more similar than different. Also Texas was independent. It chose to join and wasn't forced in. Texas seceding is just a joke. There is a lot to be said for a country built on strong institutional legitimacy (even the re-organized South after the Civil War was re-admitted state by state through local votes): people don't jump for the exits at the first sign of trouble.
- deesun108 9y ago
  England didn't have the natural resources, population, geography, techno-centric culture to sustain its leadership. US does.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    By the standards of its time it did. Unlimited amounts of coal, access to any resource it could ever want through it's expansive colonial assets, a large population, ideal geography for trade, and considerable military assets.
hamidhasan 9y ago
With regards to 3), considering that TenCent owns both SuperCell (developer of the most popular mobile game) and Riot Games (developer of the most popular PC game), that may not be true for much longer, or at least you could say that there is serious competition in that area.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Did Tencent move those studios (based in Finland, LA) to China already?
  - vuln 9y ago
    It looks like the HQ is in Tencent Seafront Towers, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Wow, all those Finnish and american game developers relocated to Shenzhen. Amazing (no, not really, tendentious bought some foreign companies doesn’t make chinese talent a video game power house, it has nothing to do with it)
Chaebixi 9y ago
I would honestly say a lot of that is legacy from when the US really was indisputably dominant, and not really a reflection of current native capabilities. There's also probably a list of many, more important strengths, that the US has lost, for example: It's no longer "the world's workshop." I'd also challenge a lot of the items in your list: > 1.) having the biggest economy in the world, and growing 3% per year This might not be true for much longer, maybe only a couple of decades. > 3.) having the biggest worldly influential video game business If this is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise. > 4.) having 40% of assets in the world This is really just #1 repeated, IMHO. Also, the strength of "ownership," especially that of foreign assets, is a legal concept that could be undone with the stroke of a pen. It could also be easily undone of those assets become less valuable (e.g. if the US enters a serious decline, it's unlikely that US stocks would remain a good investment). > 5.) having most of the innovations in technology Innovations and technology can be stolen, it's the ability to continuously create AND implement them that matters. > 6.) having most of the biggest corporations This is basically #4 repeated, IMHO. > 7.) having the most brands This is basically #6 repeated. Furthermore, what real power comes from having a "brand" let along a lot of them? Also, how long can this last if "brands" are often used in a shell game to mask quality declines (see https://recraigslist.com/2015/10/they-used-to-last-50-years/ https://recraigslist.com/2015/10/they-used-to-last-50-years/)?
- deesun108 9y ago
  > This might not be true for much longer, maybe only a couple of decades. nobody can estimate out to decades. anyone who claim to be able to do so is a charlatan. > If this is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise 1.2B people play games worldwide....what's your point? >This is really just #1 repeated no it's not. having assets and the ability to generate even more assets are seperate issues (look at Saudi Arabia post oil) > Innovations and technology can be stolen Until you try selling your stolen technology in US or Europe or Japan....oh wait you can't. > This is basically #4 repeated population having asset is different than the country having corporations.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > nobody can estimate out to decades. anyone who claim to be able to do so is a charlatan. No one can with certainty, but it's also foolish not to try. Anyway, you're doing the same thing: any enumeration of strengths (in this context) comes with the implication that those strengths will remain. Otherwise the list is moot. >> If [video games] is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise > 1.2B people play games worldwide....what's your point? Clearly that "games" aren't actually an important category in any sensible reckoning, and that an one that treats them as such is a mockery or something that can't be taken seriously. > no it's not. having assets and the ability to generate even more assets are seperate issues (look at Saudi Arabia post oil) This might be the time to point out that you didn't even define what "assets" you were talking about, let alone how you determined that the US has "40%" of them. > Until you try selling your stolen technology in US or Europe or Japan....oh wait you can't. There's more to the world that Europe or Japan. > population having asset is different than the country having corporations. Maybe technically, but most American "assets" are owned or controlled by corporations. And their value is that they control those assets.
sharpercoder 9y ago
Sure, USA has a lot! That's not at discussion here. The discussion is about dominance. SV dominates the world as everyone uses Google, Facebook & Apple. The military industrial complex has no match, not one even close to that of the USA. The economy has strong contenders with Europe and China. Yes, it's a strong economy, but the maker-industry has largely been moved to China, which now surely dominates it. Point 6 & 7 include economy. Hollywood surely tops any other in the western world - don't underestimate the Chinese movie industry and Bollywood. They account for a significant userbase of the world population, combined ~1-2 billion. That's not far off Hollywood's. The video game business I bundle with Silicon Valley. What's left is a strong and influential USA but declining slowly but surely. For Silicon Valley as well: India and China have a large population now with more and more skilled workers. It won't be for long until SV will lose is leadership position.

astrodust 9y ago

Like many external observers I'm astonished at how many Americans take their position for granted. This is a list of things that can go away in a heartbeat. Someone living in Victorian England couldn't possibly imagine a world where Britain wasn't at the absolute centre and on in charge of everything, yet within two generations that power had all but faded.

frandroid 9y ago
> can go away in a heartbeat > within two generations
- astrodust 9y ago
  "If there's one thing Americans need to learn it's a hundred years is not a long time, just as Europeans need to learn a hundred miles is not a long distance."
pishpash 9y ago
It took two wars for Britain to slink back. But Britain is also inherently limited by its size. The US has a rather stronger foundation and unlikely to really go anywhere even if no longer absolutely dominant at some future time.
- astrodust 9y ago
  The current political entity that is the "United States of America" is geographically larger, but it's not as assured in its dominance as you think. What if Texas splits off and takes a few states with it? What if California decides to bail as well? That'd put a lot of pressure on New England, which might just call it quits, too, rather than be saddled with the South. A single thing could lead to the complete erosion of the United States as we know it, and politically it would never recover. If you think this is impossible, that it will never happen, the Austro-Hungarian empire was once like this, geographically and economically dominant, yet it fell apart surprisingly quickly. Consider: The United States has only fought only a handful of wars on its own soil and a few of those went really badly. A large country is harder to defend, and if the entire might of the US military can't keep a lid on a place like Afghanistan or Iraq what hope does it have holding together half a continent?
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Austria-Hungry was cobbled together in a "personal union," and ended when the notion of how states are built shifted to nationalities. Barring such a large shift in statecraft which would affect every country, I don't see the US breaking apart, and it wouldn't be because the military could/could not keep it so, but because there is no real secessionist movement in the US today. There are good reasons for this, one is unity of culture compared to most other countries in the world, and another is federalism to tide over the differences. Things could change if say, cloning started happening and the South couldn't handle it, or Trump became a dictator-for-life and institutional means didn't stop him, but somebody would have to change their way of life for secession to be seriously on the table again. Why would California or Texas break away today? Internal economic dynamics are beneficial enough to keep them in. Things like language differences that might break apart other centralized countries simply aren't issues (some localities print their official stuff in Spanish, Vietnamese, whatever, others don't; ethnic radio stations and TV stations exist if you want to have them, nobody cares; you can incorporate your own cities if there are enough of "you" living together, whatever "you" are, and you can elect one of your own as mayor, it's a big country). During the Civil War there was still a strong notion of states' rights, today there is not and the country is a lot more similar than different. Also Texas was independent. It chose to join and wasn't forced in. Texas seceding is just a joke. There is a lot to be said for a country built on strong institutional legitimacy (even the re-organized South after the Civil War was re-admitted state by state through local votes): people don't jump for the exits at the first sign of trouble.
deesun108 9y ago
England didn't have the natural resources, population, geography, techno-centric culture to sustain its leadership. US does.
- astrodust 9y ago
  By the standards of its time it did. Unlimited amounts of coal, access to any resource it could ever want through it's expansive colonial assets, a large population, ideal geography for trade, and considerable military assets.

hamidhasan 9y ago

With regards to 3), considering that TenCent owns both SuperCell (developer of the most popular mobile game) and Riot Games (developer of the most popular PC game), that may not be true for much longer, or at least you could say that there is serious competition in that area.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Did Tencent move those studios (based in Finland, LA) to China already?
- vuln 9y ago
  It looks like the HQ is in Tencent Seafront Towers, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Wow, all those Finnish and american game developers relocated to Shenzhen. Amazing (no, not really, tendentious bought some foreign companies doesn’t make chinese talent a video game power house, it has nothing to do with it)

Chaebixi 9y ago

I would honestly say a lot of that is legacy from when the US really was indisputably dominant, and not really a reflection of current native capabilities. There's also probably a list of many, more important strengths, that the US has lost, for example: It's no longer "the world's workshop." I'd also challenge a lot of the items in your list: > 1.) having the biggest economy in the world, and growing 3% per year This might not be true for much longer, maybe only a couple of decades. > 3.) having the biggest worldly influential video game business If this is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise. > 4.) having 40% of assets in the world This is really just #1 repeated, IMHO. Also, the strength of "ownership," especially that of foreign assets, is a legal concept that could be undone with the stroke of a pen. It could also be easily undone of those assets become less valuable (e.g. if the US enters a serious decline, it's unlikely that US stocks would remain a good investment). > 5.) having most of the innovations in technology Innovations and technology can be stolen, it's the ability to continuously create AND implement them that matters. > 6.) having most of the biggest corporations This is basically #4 repeated, IMHO. > 7.) having the most brands This is basically #6 repeated. Furthermore, what real power comes from having a "brand" let along a lot of them? Also, how long can this last if "brands" are often used in a shell game to mask quality declines (see https://recraigslist.com/2015/10/they-used-to-last-50-years/ https://recraigslist.com/2015/10/they-used-to-last-50-years/)?

deesun108 9y ago
> This might not be true for much longer, maybe only a couple of decades. nobody can estimate out to decades. anyone who claim to be able to do so is a charlatan. > If this is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise 1.2B people play games worldwide....what's your point? >This is really just #1 repeated no it's not. having assets and the ability to generate even more assets are seperate issues (look at Saudi Arabia post oil) > Innovations and technology can be stolen Until you try selling your stolen technology in US or Europe or Japan....oh wait you can't. > This is basically #4 repeated population having asset is different than the country having corporations.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > nobody can estimate out to decades. anyone who claim to be able to do so is a charlatan. No one can with certainty, but it's also foolish not to try. Anyway, you're doing the same thing: any enumeration of strengths (in this context) comes with the implication that those strengths will remain. Otherwise the list is moot. >> If [video games] is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise > 1.2B people play games worldwide....what's your point? Clearly that "games" aren't actually an important category in any sensible reckoning, and that an one that treats them as such is a mockery or something that can't be taken seriously. > no it's not. having assets and the ability to generate even more assets are seperate issues (look at Saudi Arabia post oil) This might be the time to point out that you didn't even define what "assets" you were talking about, let alone how you determined that the US has "40%" of them. > Until you try selling your stolen technology in US or Europe or Japan....oh wait you can't. There's more to the world that Europe or Japan. > population having asset is different than the country having corporations. Maybe technically, but most American "assets" are owned or controlled by corporations. And their value is that they control those assets.

sharpercoder 9y ago

Sure, USA has a lot! That's not at discussion here. The discussion is about dominance. SV dominates the world as everyone uses Google, Facebook & Apple. The military industrial complex has no match, not one even close to that of the USA. The economy has strong contenders with Europe and China. Yes, it's a strong economy, but the maker-industry has largely been moved to China, which now surely dominates it. Point 6 & 7 include economy. Hollywood surely tops any other in the western world - don't underestimate the Chinese movie industry and Bollywood. They account for a significant userbase of the world population, combined ~1-2 billion. That's not far off Hollywood's. The video game business I bundle with Silicon Valley. What's left is a strong and influential USA but declining slowly but surely. For Silicon Valley as well: India and China have a large population now with more and more skilled workers. It won't be for long until SV will lose is leadership position.