Um, no.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**We don’t know how the ‘fall’ of the U.S. might happen, because it’s not even close to its peak as of yet. The U.S. is still growing in power economically, and it’s growing faster than the world average.
There’s the answer to the OP… if (and/or when) the USA “empire” (or whatever you want to call it) falls it will be from a total economic collapse. Hoarding gold won’t help much then!
[quote]
How do you get from my statement that the U.S. faces total economic collapse?
I think some of you might not realize just how powerful the U.S. is. Look at this list:
World Gross Domestic Product
1 United States 10,171,400
2 Japan 4,245,191
3 Germany 1,873,854
4 United Kingdom 1,406,310
5 France /a 1,302,793
6 China 1,159,017
7 Italy 1,090,910
8 Canada 677,178
9 Mexico 617,817
10 Spain 577,539
…
176 Kiribati 40
The U.S. and Japan together make up almost half of the GDP of the entire world. The U.S. alone has a GDP almost as big as all the other nations in the top 10 combined.
And this gap is getting bigger, not smaller. The U.S. growth rate over the last 20 years is significantly higher than the world average, and higher than the European average. And it’s compounding yearly.
And when it comes to military spending, the difference is even bigger. Look at this:
Country Military budget
United States $396.1
Russia1 60.0
China1 42.0
Japan 40.4
United Kingdom 34.0
Saudi Arabia 27.2
France 25.3
Germany 21.0
Brazil1 17.9
India 15.6
Italy 15.5
South Korea 11.8
The U.S. military budget is roughly the same size as the military budgets of the rest of the world COMBINED. And while the U.S. military budget is spent on U.S. interests, many of the other budgets are spent by countries defending themselves against each other. No other countries on the planet come anywhere close to the U.S.'s ability to project power.
If the U.S. ‘empire’ is to collapse, there are absolutely no signs of it in today’s world. The U.S. continues to grow in power and influence, at an accelerating rate.
This is the root cause of the rebellion underway in the U.N. and NATO, IMO. Not the merits of an Iraqi war.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**How do you get from my statement that the U.S. faces total economic collapse?
I don’t… that’s why I said if and/or when. IF and/or WHEN our “empire” falls, it could only be from that factor. Military or any other form of conquest could only happen AFTER the Great Depression returns to stay. That’s all I meant.
CedricR.
I see the American Empire as not a military conquering force like the Romans but rather an economic force, where the American way of keeping other greedy countries in line is through offering more trade or threatening to withhold it.
The only way the American Empire would go away is if a larger empire competed with it and conquered/absorbed it, or if a world-wide catastrophe struck disrupting trade and nullifying the American’s lead compared to the rest of the world.
-k
Right. Nobody’s saying the US is about to fall, just speculating on how would that come about.
As for the interestintg semantic battle going on here, I have the following thoughts: I propose that we forget about talking about the fall of “empires” and start talking about the fall of Great Powers. It’s even closer to the thread title. We’re getting confused by the modern connotation of the word “empire”, which is that a metropolitan power imposes her actual rule, either directly or through handpicked vassals she controls, upon distinct other peoples and territories who would otherwise be free and sovereign. e.g. Britain-India, France-Algeria/Indochina, Soviets-Eastern Europe/Central Asia. The only real “other nations” that really are directly imposed upon by American rule are the Native Americans (Guamanians, Puertorricans, Samoans, can vote themselves independent any time they want)
The USA is a hegemon, a Preponderant Power that is politico/econo/militar/culturally ready, willing and able to shape the world (or regional) order in the image of its interests (and in some cases can do so w/o trying). (No, it isn’t in Merriam-Webster’s On-line. I’m borrowing it from a book in Spanish). Britain in her peak was an empire AND a hegemon. France was a real hegemon at a different time from when she was a real empire. Belgium had an empire (the Congo) but was never hegemonic.
Okay, let’s try that then.
How do great powers decline? Mostly through internal decay. The Romans learned to vote their own bread-and-circuses, and became decadent.
If the U.S. turns inward, stops stretching itself, and starts spending its riches on social programs, it will begin to decay. This is what happened to Great Britain after the war, and it’s what is happening to Europe today. People are more interested in security, health care, safety nets, ‘social justice’, and other internal issues than they are in stretching their boundaries, striving for achievement, etc.
The reason the U.S. has managed to stay so vibrant and outgrow the rest of the world is because it has managed to maintain its vibrancy. The American work ethic is still extremely strong. Americans see themselves as ‘can-do’ people, with a unique spirit. Americans are less regulated than other peoples, and spend a greater percentage of their money in the private sector than do most other industrial nations.
Compare that to my home country, Canada. At the end of WWII, Canada had one of the best aerospace industries in the world. We had the second largest Navy, and the third largest air force. Canada’s dollar was worth more than the American dollar.
But we stopped trying to achieve. We let our aerospace industry wither away, drew down our armed forces to save money, and spent heavily on social programs and government management of the economy.
Today, the Canadian dollar is at 65 cents, our military spending is almost nonexistant, but we have the highest tax rates and debt in the G7.
That’s how great countries decline.
So basically, every single government is an empire. yawn
Kempis: That’s not an empire; that’s called free enterprise.
Neurotik: In other words, you’re not going to honestly answer the question.
What question? You mean your assertion that I don’t understand the reality of the matter? I explained my reasoning, you have yet to address it.
Second, if you want to assume that one needs to conquer territories to be an empire, then look at the history of Hawaii and the American southwest. Or the Native Americans.
Sounds suspiciously like the US. Except that instead of gladiator fights, we have wars. And for “bread”, read “tax cuts”. Sound familiar?
So the fact that the British were economically weakened by a major war in which they had the bejeezus bombed out of them and thus were less able to maintain control of their farflung colonies, combined with persistent and increasing movements for independence by those colonies (thinking mostly of India here), had nothing to do with the dissolution of the British Empire? And, somehow, it’s all the fault of the NHS? Amazing.
That’s right! What’s good for big business is good for America! Those lazy welfare mothers are responsible for the decay of American society! Those Enron workers shouldn’t have felt entitled to those pensions – they didn’t deserve them! America needs more monopolies!
<goes off to get more straw>
No shit? It has managed to stay vibrant because it has managed to maintain it’s vibrancy?
Anyway, according to Paul Kennedy in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, he contends that the powers don’t so much as fall as get surpassed.
For instance, your average English citizen are better of now than they were at the height of the British empire.
China with it’s 7.5% economic growth, showing no sign of stopping, will very likely surpass the United States very quickly.
Spouting statistics over the economies of individual European nations is also somewhat fallacious because, the GDP of the European Union is nearly at parity with that of the United States, with the US being roughly over 10 trillion and the EU being roughly over 9 trillion.
I don’t think that America will fall in the sense that many here believe that it will, I do however think that it will be surpassed, and I think that will be great, we can return to our isolationism, and continue to trade with a world that has enough power to keep things in check while we play mega-Switzerland over here and live our lives in peace.
Erek
Yeah, I was a little redundant there, wasn’t I?
And I agree with you that great powers get surpassed. That’s what I was talking about above. After all, Britain and France are still there today, and the standard of living in those countries is much higher than it was when they were at their peak of world power. It’s just that the U.S. outgrew them rapidly in the 20th century.
If the U.S. turns inward, stops achieving, and starts focusing on its own comfort, its growth rate will slow, and then another upstart will outgrow the U…S. and rise in power.
It ain’t just economic power the U.S. holds over other nations’ heads.
Any time another economically-useful country has a government that isn’t “friendly to U.S. interests,” the U.S. does everything in its power – openly or secretly – to replace that government with one that is friendly to U.S. interests. Witness the way the U.S. is always sticking its fingers into the South and Central American games of political Musical Chairs.
Perhaps that’s what people mean when they say the U.S. is an “empire”. The other nations within the U.S. “empire” aren’t officially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but if they don’t do what the U.S. wants they’ll replace their Sandanistas with U.S.-friendly Contras.
empire >noun 1 an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority. 2 supreme political power. 3 a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group.
I found this definition and i think it fits the united states or probably any country. Its not like we have a true democracy with direct control by the people. In fact i think that we are quite far removed from control. Sure we dont have a monarch, but we do have a system in which few control many, by “working” (or abusing) the system. Lets face it- if voting is to be truly successful for the people, we need to have educated voters who judge canidates strictly on the issues and to see past the political games of elections. Few people have the ability or the time or the knowledge to actually do this.
I know your thinking: “waddaya mean? i vote, lotsa people vote. I see the ads on TV and i watch the debates and i got an education.” Yes but how many elections do you participate in? Primaries? Do you really research all canidats thoroughly? Do you ever lean toward one canidate because you like him? (they work hard at that- dont let em’ fool you!) …And do you really have the time in your life to correctly research all of this between job and kids and so on…? For most people by the time you vote in the actual election, your choice is VERY narrow! (2 or 3 canidates with fairly similar views) Woo- hoo for democracy and choices…
So i am inclined to disagree that the US is a democracy. We may not be controlled by a ruler, but we ARE controlled by a system that is flawed and a system which makes it very difficult for most people to influence thier own government. And the people who are elected could care less about changing a system that got them elected in the first place. They arent going to bother trying to make it more democratic…
So please think twice before proclaiming your freedom. It isnt as glorious as what they taught in grade school. Dont get me wrong- Im not anti- american, I think this country is better than most but why doesn’t anyone look at the flaws and the hypocrisy? Why not view the country in a negative way in order to make it better? When you stop looking for flaws, you stop making progress…
The wisest people dont claim to have all the answers.
ummm, ok back on the thread topic anyway… I hope america will evolve away into something better, rather than actually fall. I dont know what might happen but i do agree that it will eventually be no more, not a doubt in my mind…
Firstly, the point that empires (read: most powerful political units of their day) decline due to imperial over-reach is salient here. I would note that Britain’s period of relative decline started in the late 19th century, well before the Post WW-II expansion of social welfare programs.
But let’s leave crises aside. Regardless, relative decline is inevitable for the US. China and/or India will see to that.
The OECD recently sponsored a study conducted by Angus Maddison entitled, “The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective”. For the purposes of this thread, I will concern myself with 2 post-war eras, 1950-1973 and 1973-1998.
The period from 1950-1973 displayed the fasted economic growth the world has ever experienced. The 1973-1998 period is the second best within the capitalist epic.
Growth in Per Capita GDP
1950-73 1973-98
US 2.45 1.99
Canada 2.74 1.60
12 Western Europe 3.93 1.75
Japan 8.05 2.34
China 2.86 5.39
India 1.40 2.91
Western Europe does NOT include Portugal, Spain, Ireland or Greece, here.
pop US 1998: 271 million; pop China:1243 million, pop India: 975 million
At any rate, China and India are each converging on the US. Given that their populations are 4.6 and 3.6 times that of the US respectively, it is only a matter of time before their economies surpass that of the US. There is every reason to believe that the US’s share of world output will continue to fall.
One question is whether we will pass the torch onto a prosperous and free China or to government that is quasi-democratic at best. Another question is whether the US will do so with grace or whether it will wring its hands at being military “weak”, quotation marks intentional.
--------Sam: If the U.S. turns inward, stops achieving, and starts focusing on its own comfort, its growth rate will slow, and then another upstart will outgrow the U…S. and rise in power.
Hm. There is some evidence for per capita GDP convergence among countries. It is not inevitable (growth can stall as it did in Argentina) but it does occur (example: US vs. Western Europe and Japan). Even a small amount of per-person convergence will lead to Indian and Chinese dominance, regardless of US policies.
It is simply easier to play catch-up than to grow at technology’s cutting edge.
But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Frankly, maintaining global hegemony is a pain in the ass, IMHO. If it was feasible to pass the job of global democratic policeman to the Brazilian or Indonesian army, that would be fine by me. As one American politician once said, “The cold war is over. Japan won.” (This was before their political and economic system seized up).
Well, I don’t think ‘convergence’ is inevitable. The Soviet Union grew well enough until it reached the point where its economy became too complex for its central planners, and its people too dissatisfied, and the flaws and corruption of its system became too entrenched. Then its GDP growth stagnated while the U.S. kept on roaring.
If China continues with market reforms, and becomes a free society, then yes, it could absolutely kick the U.S.'s butt over time. Can you imagine the vibrancy of the ‘Asian Tigers’, but with the resources and manpower China can bring to the table?
But if China sticks to its essential communism or tries to go some ‘third way’ and winds up as a fascist command economy or something, it’ll suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union in terms of economic output.
Here’s a thought experiment.
Assume 1973-1998 growth rates for population and GDP (combined) and see when China surpasses the US, assuming the figures stay the same (which they won’t). All numbers are inflation adjusted.
US assumed growth: 3%
Chinese assumed growth: 6.8%
Because US growth is off a larger base, the divergence increases initially, and peaks after 39 years. Then, China starts to catch up. China surpasses the US in year 61. The big media crisis occurs during 2050-2060, when the US-Chinese gap closes rapidly.* Note though, that per capita wealth in the US remains much larger than China, even in (say) 2061.
Take Sam’s GDP figures and assume they apply to the year 2001:
t US China diff
1 10,171,400 1,159,017 9,012,383
10 13,271,370 2,095,227 11,176,143
20 17,835,611 4,045,234 13,790,378
39 31,274,853 14,118,788 17,156,065
50 43,291,710 29,112,613 14,179,097
60 58,180,439 56,207,428 1,973,010
61 59,925,852 60,029,533 (103,682)
*Or perhaps not. The percentage differences don’t shift as rapidly.
I see Sam’s post. No, convergence isn’t inevitable. But note that the above scenario doesn’t depend upon full convergence. China could have a standard of living that is half that of the US and still produce substantially greater output in aggregate.
At the same time, the Economist has noted that for China to continue its growth streak, it will need to reform its heavy industry. So my dates should be taken with a heft of salt.
Nonetheless, when you have over four times the population of the US, you can make a lot of mistakes and still wind up with a bigger economy.
Convergence is not inevitable (just to agree again).
In 1913, Argentina had a larger per-person GDP than France or Germany. By 1998, its standard of living was less than half that of France and just over half that of Germany.