6 ms·
The decline of US power?
- x5n1 11y agoEmpires on average last for 250 years. It's about time for the US to start losing power. Not only that America really doesn't know what to do about many of the problems that it helped create. American capitalists helped create China, American foreign policy helped create the "new" Middle East. Which is an unstable hell hole and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future. http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/... page 4. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires
- agumonkey 11y agoWhere did you get the 250 figure ? just curious.
- x5n1 11y agohttp://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/... page 4. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires
- agumonkey 11y agoThanks a lot.
- bsaul 11y agoOttoman empire 250 years ?? I didn't read the whole book but to my knowledge, it started around 1300 and ended brutaly after WW1. Same goes for roman empire, they make it stop at 200AD, but i've always learned it lastest till 4th century. With those kind of figure bending you can pretty much say anything you want.
- x5n1 11y agoOttoman empire stopped expanding and pretty much stagnated after about 250 years. America could see a similar fate. With robotics and economy and global problems it can't do much about... even meddle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_O...
- Avalaxy 11y agoThe Roman 'empire' actually lasted almost 2000 years when you take the eastern Roman empire (the Byzantine empire) into consideration. The Roman republic started in 509 BC, the eastern roman empire ended in 1453 AD. Btw, the western Roman empire ended in 476 AD. The ~200 number you mentioned probably refers to the split of the Roman empire into a western and an eastern part, in 284 AD.
- bsaul 11y agoI'm not sure americans are for anything in the current mess. China was a strong power for centuries thanks to its huge population and territory. It just lagged a bit behind and just catched up. Middle east has also been a mess for centuries ( at the minimum). Shiites vs sunnites is a forever running war, and you can't tell the US are really the root cause of it. As for saying "empires on average" , i don't think it means anything. Some lasted for more than 1000 years, other less than 5. But we don't have enough statistics to assume anything is "about time".
- x5n1 11y agoYes I know America as a country loves to meddle everywhere but completely refuses to take responsibility for any of its actions. As for averages, see above. Yes we have a list of all human empires and there are outliers that are 1000 years old. I don't think America will be an outlier.
- honest_joe 11y agoQuite the opposite. China was a 2nd player due to its vast territory and population. Chinese are not homogeneous like Koreans for example when it comes to culture and one language. They were always hard to manage and hard to rule and organize. That's why they kept loosing to japanese, mongols, british and the US. China has to always pay attention to its neighbours. They can be economic dwarves compared to US or China but are extremely powerful when organized.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jwdunne 11y agoWould be good to know how that figure came about! Are you sure this isn't skewed by maritime empires, such as the British and Spanish? The landmass based empires I study with interest have typically lasted more than twice that. The Roman Empire is one, which holds true if you consider both the Byzantine empire as separate and a continuation. The Ottomans, although not my interest, I do know lasted a long time. The HRE lasted much longer too. I understand that the average case is pulled in either direction from multiple empires but I think it's useful to compare with empires with similar qualities and their longevity as opposed to comparing against the average case. For example, comparing to Britain wouldn't make sense since the base of power was a much smaller landmass with a strong central governing tradition within the nation proper. Their empire was based on supreme naval and economic dominance, which was outmoded by the natural advance of technology. EDIT: I've just noted the link below. I wouldn't say that the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist at that point but was perhaps less strong. Is the fall of an empire the decline in strength or the point in which it is no longer deemed an empire?
- ido 11y agothe HRE was not really an empire, more of a loose confederation ('In a famous assessment of the name, the French Enlightenment writer Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."'[1]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Name
- jwdunne 11y agoCould the same be said for the USA? Though a bit more tightly knit, states tend to have a degree of autonomy, each with representatives - the adjacency of States is also similar in a way to the HRE. The model of electing an emperor from the princes of each elector state holds some similarity is also somewhat significant in my opinion, though democratically much different.
- ido 11y agoThe USA is a federation but it's much more integrated - maybe the comparison holds more water against the early US in the late 18th and early 19th century.
- pcrh 11y agoThe US rose as a significant international power only after WWI, so I guess it still has a way to go...
- x5n1 11y agoFirst of all America was a colony to begin with, until Independence. And since then it has been expanding by colonizing. It's been an Empire since the Revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessi...
- pcrh 11y agoThe continental USA hasn't been considered an empire since the 1840's, any more then the UK is considered an "English Empire". I suppose the continental USA could be invaded by Mexico or Canada, in which case one would have to see a much more considerable reversal of fortunes than that being considered in the OP.
- charlesray 11y agoI simply don't believe any past statistics on things like this are relevant in the modern era.
- jacquesm 11y agoI'm sure every person in the past connected to any one of those empires thought exactly the same thing. We can't really help thinking like that either, after all the present is so special, this time it will be different and history is already long gone.
- charlesray 11y agoThis is the first era in history in which we have a complete, unobstructed view of the world. We can communicate instantly with anyone, anywhere. We can share our culture and our ideals instantly with anyone, anywhere. What does this mean for traditional powers? Does it mean they will last longer or die sooner? I don't know the answer to that question. But to suggest that this era is not special is incredibly short-sighted.
- jacquesm 11y agoThey said the same about the clipper ship, I'm sure at some point in time someone thought that smoke signals were a pretty good idea and that now all would be different. So yes, we can do all this stuff better, faster. It makes for a huge difference in degree and if that difference is large enough by itself it becomes a qualitative difference. But I think the mistake is to think that a change like that is enough to significantly decrease or increase our ability to build empires or to destroy them because those forces tend to balance out (assuming both sides have roughly equal access to the technology). That's why none of the other technological advances from the past made a huge difference either, the 'empire' that was expanding brought their technology with them, it became adapted and then was used against them or they simply regressed. The only times it worked was when the natives were entirely slaughtered or intermixed and those countries typically ended up declaring independence. Empire building is a losing business in the longer term, and there is no proof to date that a complete and unobstructed view of the world or instant communication are a key element to empire success (or failure).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bsbechtel 11y agoYour other comments in this thread discount the actual length of time other empires that lasted longer than 250 years held power, and extend the length of time the U.S. has held empire-like power around the globe. While you might be right that the average is 250 years, the variance is high, and your arguments to defend your position are weak.
- jganetsk 11y agoHas America been an empire for 250 years? That's quite flattering. Especially given the fact that, 250 years ago, America was part of the British Empire. America only became the world's largest economy in the 1870s, after the Civil War, and only became a superpower after WW2. Also, please explain a statement like "American capitalists helped create China". I think the Chinese would laugh at a statement like that. If anyone "helped create China", it was the Soviet Union. Regarding creating the "new" Middle East, the 20th century Middle East was created by the UK and France and led to the formation of Israel, the definition of all the borders, and the control of strongman dictators over nearly every nation in the region. We can credit the USA for creating the dictatorship in Iran and destabilizing Iraq, but what's boiling over now is largely a result of nearly 100 years of pent-up shit that America most definitely did not put in place.
- airza 11y agoHow do you complain about the decade of war and then in the same article complain about countries that the president didn't go to war with? The unique insanity of trying to blame a declining empire on such recent actions... does this happen outside of US politics?
- fredley 11y agoI don't think there's any blaming or complaining in this article. It's merely statements of America's in/actions, and the global perceptions of them over the last 15 years.
- higherpurpose 11y agotl;dr US should attack other countries more.
- honest_joe 11y agoNot really. US is a powerhouse because it attracts zillions of bright minds with the quality of live and opportunities (recently that got fucked up because of corporations). The language is relatively simple, the culture is welcoming, the landmass is beautiful and there are not so many crowded cities / places. If you are a "skilled" person of foreign nationality would you rather go to the US or China if you would have an option ?
- LimpWristed 11y ago> If you are a "skilled" person of foreign nationality would you rather go to the US or China if you would have an option ? Do you know if China is evolving culturally? The reason I wouldn't want to live in a place like China or Russia is that people there are not socially developed. By that I mean, people there are not pleasant and rudeness is the norm. Hopefully, China will be different in a decade or so.
- honest_joe 11y agoHard to say. They are experiencing "got rich quickly" syndrome of post-communist countries.I doubt China will be different anytime soon (that includes your decade :-)) as it is an isolated world within a world.
- saiya-jin 11y agoneither, if I would be non-european, I would choose either europe or australia. better quality of life, more personal freedom (yes, compared to US, the land of free), and just a more interesting places to be (EU culture diversity is still astonishing to me even though I live here 34 years already, Australia has all south east asia and great barrier reef just next to it, which are amazing places to explore)
- narrator 11y agoJoseph A. Tainter had the best theory about empire collapse. The empire usually has some way of making an economic profit. They exploit it till it starts returning negative returns and then they try all kinds of counterproductive things that only make things more complicated to try and save that little scheme they've got going.
- sledge 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter Interesting stuff.
- blumkvist 11y agoYeah, but while others exploited natural resources or other things that decrease in volume over time, the US exploits currency, which only increases over time.
- narrator 11y agoRome did not collapse because of natural resource problems. Neither did Byzantium. They collapsed because their civilizational business model started generating negative marginal returns. This can happen for environmental reasons or it can happen for other reason.
- scrrr 11y agoWell, for me USA is still great. For cultural reasons mostly(, because I'm already from a rich country). For instance, I'd like to go and work in Silicon Valley for a while. If I could get a Visa. ;)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- justwannasing 11y agoIt's been about three years since I've seen an article like this. I guess we'll see another in about three more years.
- superplussed 11y agoI'm 43 years old, I can remember seeing articles like this back to my teenage years.
- crdoconnor 11y ago>Democrats with reservations about free trade have tried to sabotage the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the biggest trade deal since Nafta. Well that's a great big lie. It's Democrats who are concerned about giving corporations carte blanche to sue in secret courts for loss of expected profits.
- kushti 11y agoNo Ferguson/Baltimore mentioned nor fast growth of govt. debt ( http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+government+debt&lk=4&num=2 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+government+debt&lk=4... , log scale by default!). It seems from the article the biggest problem of the country it doesn't kill so easily people owned by "dictators" anymore. Such a brutal western crap is definitely a huge problem itself.
- charlesray 11y agoThis article feels like it should have been written by a Redditor, not a real BBC journalist.
- daniel-cussen 11y agoPerhaps internet commenters and professional journalists are, in the quality of their articles, converging quickly.
- avodonosov 11y agoNot the worst from BBC. I remember one where they interview some "expert" who pretends to have telepathic abilities.
- charlesray 11y agoSure. But, I mean, look at some of the points they try to make. The situation in Syria is supposedly evidence of the decline of US power. No, Syria is evidence of the US public's unwillingness to contribute more American blood to a foreign war. We spent the last century dying in various jungles and deserts without much to show for it. It simply illustrates that foreign military power, in many conflicts, accomplishes very little. We could be MORE powerful, that fact still wouldn't change. The stupidest part of the article, though, was part about young Americans not thinking the US is great. Uh, newsflash: the suggestion that the US is objectively the greatest country in every way has always been absurd. The fact that young Americans now realize this isn't indicative of anything. Again, we could be getting MORE powerful and MORE influential, it still wouldn't affect the absurdity of that statement.
- orf 11y ago> The fact that young Americans now realize this isn't indicative of anything I seriously disagree with that. It's a big shift to go from a highly patriotic new generation to one almost disenfranchised with the whole idea.
- 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- vinay_ys 11y agoSo many sci-fi episodes from startrek/stargate come to mind. US foreign policy (for that matter any countries') is designed to exploit all other countries for the benefit of their own interests. Sometimes immediate interests cause shortsightedness which results in a mess being created for them as well. It used to be that mess everywhere else is good for US businesses. But given how all economies are interconnected in more direct ways and hardly any major company has US interests only, the game is more interesting and the political thinkers and lobbyists are yet to catchup to this new reality.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y agoIn fairness the Atlantis expedition was a very international team.
- jgreen10 11y agoThe three major powers in the world today are the US, the EU, and China. The trade that makes them world powers also makes military conflicts between them unthinkable. The US needs to focus on maintaining its economic superiority and not waste its time on fighting the peanut gallery. So far it is doing a pretty good job, or rather, not as bad a job as the other two.
- vinay_ys 11y agoAnd BBC is showing it's racist and colonialist thinking colors more and more these days. Such propaganda doesn't bode well for their brand reputation.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nabla9 11y agoGreat powers often decline from inside-out. It's reasons outside them just assist the process. Most empires do not truly collapse. They just decline and change into something else, often parts of other empires. British Empire is now small part of power structure in its ex-colony. If you join British Empire and American hegemony together, get 400 years of expanding Anglo-Saxon culture with internal power shifts (like different dynasties in China). In the "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", Kennedy argues that all Western powers in last 500 years are drawn into strategic entanglements that force them to spend more of their GDP on defense. This leads to domestic underinvestment. First the great power experiences relative economic decline, then its rivals start to challenge it. Then wars bankrupt it.
- rm999 11y agoPerversely, America's excessive amount of control over all other countries has likely (largely) led to the world's unprecedented amount of peace and stability. This is the theory of Hegemonic stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory The US doesn't exert its power for the greater good, it does so for its own economic gain - but world peace and stability are good for the US. It's a very interesting dynamic. It's very subjective if USA's relative waning power is good or bad, but there's a chance we'll see increasing strife in the world as America's power wanes. edit: based off the ever-changing karma on this comment I'm assuming some people are downvoting this. My comment is meant to be a neutral stance towards a well-respected political theory - how about a response along with the downvotes? I'd love to have some discussion around the Hegemonic stability theory, which I find fascinating.
- ExpiredLink 11y ago> the world's unprecedented amount of peace and stability ... in Syria, Iraq, Libya.
- fridek 11y agoYou can view them as huge tragedies or local aberrations, depending on where you live I guess. But if you consider what the modern world is capable of in terms of armed conflict (probably few orders of magnitude more of what WW1/2 was) I think it's reasonably peaceful at the moment.
- theseatoms 11y agoThey become even more extreme aberrations when you consider the state of modern communications technology, and the fact that the news media only reports on the most sensational stories. I can't even imagine what a representative sample of "news" would look like, but it's worth the thought experiment.
- saiya-jin 11y agoIMHO since 9/11, the situation is going downwards. just because we have potential for more destruction than there is currently being done, I wouldn't call it a success and happy peaceful times. maybe that's an US view, far removed from all the mess you guys are creating daily
- finnjohnsen2 11y agoA part of me hope they vote in a republican again. ISIS gotta go. That third Bush maybe...?
- happyscrappy 11y agoThe thing that is ignored and has to be ignored or you would not have a story, is the near total alignment of the entire West. Economically, militarily and culturally the West is absolutely the dominant force, and that is a good thing.
- netcan 11y agoThe issue with these "economic decline" stories and speculations is that "decline" is never defined in any kind of useful way. So, arguments tend to rise with people talking past each other because they are using a different idea of what axis the decline is moving along. Are we talking about the power to dictate trade terms or monopolize trade routes? This is a lot less important than in the 17th century. Do they mean cultural influence? I can report as a European that I understand US politics better than my own country's. I watch more US movies than al else combined. Do they mean "highest GDP?" Military power? the ability to be the "world Policeman?"
- a3n 11y agoAnd if this is a problem, why aren't other countries taking up the role?
- leichtgewicht 11y agoThe wealth of the united states has been concentrated to very few people in the past 20 years. Those people are owners of multinational conglomerates that don't give much about borders anyways. Where the U.S. as a state used to be a driving force of those money horses, it is now a glorified container for the US defence department. The state(country) officials are allowed to fight as long as the bottom line of the 1%(0.1%) is not endangered...