5 ms·

No one can predict the future, and this is sensationalism and speculation, not reasoned journalism. Let's talk about the "fall" of the UK. The British have uni

No one can predict the future, and this is sensationalism and speculation, not reasoned journalism. Let's talk about the "fall" of the UK. The British have universal healthcare and London is a leading global city. The biggest things that can be said for bad about the UK are (1) that London is extremely expensive, and (2) that the weather sucks. (1) is true but hardly seems to have anything to do with global decline; (2) is easy enough to deal with when you have $50 airfares to Spain and Italy and 5 weeks of vacation required by law. So... is that what "decline" looks like? It doesn't sound so bad. The UK certainly did have a period of economic privation that was longer than ours. Ours fit neatly between a stock market crash (1929) and the end of a war (1945) while theirs lingered on for about 15 years longer. That wasn't because the British Empire fell. That was because Britain got thoroughly devastated by Nazi bombing, while we lost one military base in Hawaii. Even the countries that "won" World Wars I and II mostly lost, economically speaking. Sure, the American Empire is toast. It's already fading in importance, and the economic and cultural malaise that OP argues come along with imperial collapse are already happening. In fact, the pattern of ignominious military misadventure didn't start in 2003 with Iraq; the war in Vietnam was worse. Does this mean that we're headed for economic collapse or World War III? No. Sure, those things could happen. I don't see them as especially likely. The American Empire is unwinding because nation-states themselves are becoming less relevant. The global elite (which includes many highly wealthy Americans, but has no allegiance to any specific country or ideology) has pushed aside the national elites. They don't matter anymore, except for ceremonial purposes. The rise of the global elite (the WEF fuckheads) isn't a good thing. For all of its flaws, the WASP aristocracy was a hell of a lot more virtuous and pro-democratic (and, more to the point, it gave a shit what happened to the U.S.) than the new elite of Russian blatnoy-oligarchs and the oil sheikhs from countries where it's legal to fuck a 9-year-old (if you're married to her). Where this global elite is headed, and what the rest of us in the 99.99% will have to do with or to them is another discussion, and I don't care to have it... This idea that the U.S. is destined for economic ruin, however, has no basis. Sure, there are some nasty problems we're going to face, nationally and globally. But there has never been a time in history when that wasn't the case.

icegreentea 13y ago
It's difficult to make a comparison to the British since as the British empire flagged, they went ahead and hitched their fortunes to the rising American "empire". I don't think its unreasonable to say that Europe (and much of Western Europe) has benefited much from their attachment to the "American way", despite whatever differences there are between all the countries. The question is: what happens when empires fall? And there is no answer to that without knowing that replaces them. The British lost prestige, and actual power, but gained a favoured seat at the new game's table. Presuming a world dominated by China, where does America fit in? I have no idea. I agree that its likely -not- going to be catastrophic, but there are just so many unknowns, and so much depends on exactly what kind landing there is. And as inciting as the idea of the global elite who lord over us regardless of our nationality... I don't think the Chinese would appreciate a bunch of white guys "running" the show afterwards. Just as generations of Western Europeans and Americans where able to enter regions and dominate or co-opt the local elite through superior resources and means, the Chinese will do the same.
sologoub 13y ago
Here's an article from 1995 titled "Japan May Still Surpass U.s. To Become Leading Economic Power By The Year 2000":http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/9504100029_1_eamonn-fingleton-japan-yen http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/95041... While the overall trajectory maybe right, the comparisons between the likes of USSR is really incorrect. The actual "fall" of the USSR came at the dissolution of the lands conquered by the old Russian Empire. The tensions driving that, besides obvious greed for money and power, were that those pieces weren't always together to begin with. Russia, Belarus and most of Ukraine were, but much of the rest was absorbed through violence. Even today, Ukraine's west and east are at odds with each other - one part wanting to come back to Russia and the other wanting to go back to Poland/Europe. The military strength is likely to depend a lot more on unmanned machinery in the next few decades rather than on human soldiers. If true, that would erode much of the advantage China and India hold from the sheer numbers stand point. Economically, China may very well develop to be #1. That said, they do have a long road ahead of them in terms of really sustaining their own buying behaviors. Currently, US is #1 through much of its own consumption. This is a very remarkable feat. The extremely robust domestic market is not something most other countries can really boast. Currently, both India and China need others to consume a very large share of what they produce. While I'm not really sure of all the measures McKinsey analysts are using here, it is a good illustration of just how much China still depends on exports: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_picture_of_chinas_export_machine http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_pictu... The article does note a shift to more finished goods export and focus on the internal market, it is far from a complete process. Incidentally, these shifts and the strengthening of the middle class that seems so vital, will also likely bring about more political unrest. India is likely to experience social issues as the population gets wealthier, as shown by the recent debacle with the Indian diplomat and her house servant...

icegreentea 13y ago

It's difficult to make a comparison to the British since as the British empire flagged, they went ahead and hitched their fortunes to the rising American "empire". I don't think its unreasonable to say that Europe (and much of Western Europe) has benefited much from their attachment to the "American way", despite whatever differences there are between all the countries. The question is: what happens when empires fall? And there is no answer to that without knowing that replaces them. The British lost prestige, and actual power, but gained a favoured seat at the new game's table. Presuming a world dominated by China, where does America fit in? I have no idea. I agree that its likely -not- going to be catastrophic, but there are just so many unknowns, and so much depends on exactly what kind landing there is. And as inciting as the idea of the global elite who lord over us regardless of our nationality... I don't think the Chinese would appreciate a bunch of white guys "running" the show afterwards. Just as generations of Western Europeans and Americans where able to enter regions and dominate or co-opt the local elite through superior resources and means, the Chinese will do the same.

sologoub 13y ago

Here's an article from 1995 titled "Japan May Still Surpass U.s. To Become Leading Economic Power By The Year 2000":http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/9504100029_1_eamonn-fingleton-japan-yen http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/95041... While the overall trajectory maybe right, the comparisons between the likes of USSR is really incorrect. The actual "fall" of the USSR came at the dissolution of the lands conquered by the old Russian Empire. The tensions driving that, besides obvious greed for money and power, were that those pieces weren't always together to begin with. Russia, Belarus and most of Ukraine were, but much of the rest was absorbed through violence. Even today, Ukraine's west and east are at odds with each other - one part wanting to come back to Russia and the other wanting to go back to Poland/Europe. The military strength is likely to depend a lot more on unmanned machinery in the next few decades rather than on human soldiers. If true, that would erode much of the advantage China and India hold from the sheer numbers stand point. Economically, China may very well develop to be #1. That said, they do have a long road ahead of them in terms of really sustaining their own buying behaviors. Currently, US is #1 through much of its own consumption. This is a very remarkable feat. The extremely robust domestic market is not something most other countries can really boast. Currently, both India and China need others to consume a very large share of what they produce. While I'm not really sure of all the measures McKinsey analysts are using here, it is a good illustration of just how much China still depends on exports: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_picture_of_chinas_export_machine http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_pictu... The article does note a shift to more finished goods export and focus on the internal market, it is far from a complete process. Incidentally, these shifts and the strengthening of the middle class that seems so vital, will also likely bring about more political unrest. India is likely to experience social issues as the population gets wealthier, as shown by the recent debacle with the Indian diplomat and her house servant...