That’s my optimistic guess. My pessimistic guess is Balkanization.
What will actually happen, quien sabe? I won’t be there to see it, of that much I am fairly sure. 
Memory can play tricks on you. We actually had the support of the majority of countries in Europe. Poland even sent troops.
I’m surprised that this hasn’t made it to GD yet.
Thread moved at the request of the OP, plus a whole bunch of other people.
Two nitpicks.
-
Rome is only a city whereas the US is one of the largest countries of the world… larger even than the continent of Australia. Rome’s continuing existance was pretty much assured by its small size and good geography. The only way it would have ceased to exist was if the Romans abandoned it for some reason or it got the Carthage treatment.
-
Greece achieved its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1829, a good two millenia from the height of its power. For those two thousand years, it might as well not have existed.
Why people would gleefully be rubbing their hand in hopeful anticipation of the fall of America is beyond me. I suppose the prospect of the dark age of economic collapse that is sure to follow never crosses their minds. I’m not saying this from hubris as an American. If Europe fell tomorrow, that too would cause a horrible dark age of economic collapse.
As to the OP, I’d say RikWriter had the best points so far. You can’t use history to predict the fall of America, however painful that will be to some of you. Will it fall? Sure it will. If nothing else, a few billion years from now all the ‘empires’ will cease to exist. Other than that, on what basis do you see America currently falling (excepting your own political world view wanting it to happen yesterday)? Based on the current state of the economy? The economy rises and falls, and there are some indications that it is again on the rise (and in the future it will fall again). Militarily? Well, IMO in the modern world this doesn’t mean what it once did, but even so who can compete with the US militarily? Who has the money to spend such a high percentage on making all those new toys, who trains like we do on the scale we do, etc etc? Culturally? Well, I don’t see America as the dominent cultural force in the world (it is to laugh) but I suppose we have as much influence as say Europe, and I don’t see that waning either. So how is our mighty ‘empire’ in decline? Possibly because of our influence with other countries is currently waning? So what? Another US administration could turn that around completely.
If tomorrow the majority of the governments in the world decided that America would no longer influence them at all politically, that America had to withdraw all its troops, and was thrown out of the UN, etc, STILL America would be a superpower. We are still the biggest market place in the world, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, a continental power, one of the largest consumers of finished products in the world, still a producer of raw resources, and still one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world…and none of those factors are going to change either tomorrow or 20 years from now. Sorry to burst some of your bubbles. But you can still hate us because we are beautiful… (Warning, this was a ‘joke’ for those of you that are humor impaired :)).
In summary, predicting the ‘fall’ of the American ‘empire’ at this point is wishful thinking IMO.
-XT
The starting point of this debate is that every single all powerful nation has lost it’s top dog status sooner or later and so will the US. Anyone who thinks that the US position of “Greatest World Superpower” will last forever has not been paying attention to history.
Now–let’s see if we can wade through all the hurt feelings and the gleeful rubbing of hands and get down to the fun part-- speculation.
How long will the US’s current position at the top 'o the heap last? Will the sun set as it did in England with a relatively short stint of a hundred years or so as top dog? Will we match just-a-city-Rome with a 500 year reign? Will we set a new record and go on lording it over the western world for millenia?
What will cause our eventual downturn? Will we be subsumed by a larger entity? Will we mellow into middle of the road power? Why do you think this is the way things will turn out?
Posted by RikWriter (with regard to Paul Kennedy’s book):
What’s that got to do with this, Rik? Are you suggesting Paul Kennedy’s analysis of the decline of the British Empire and the expected decline of America’s empire is a Marxist analysis? And, if so, why exactly does that fact provide a basis to criticize his conclusions? Could you be more specific? Even if Marxism as a whole is fundamentally unsound, particular Marxist analyses, or analyses made by Marxist thinkers, can still be spot on, you know.
Defining “empire” as a predominance of wealth and international influence, I expect the American empire will be declining soon – not because of any mysterious “rythms of history” but for a specific and imminent set of problems:
The United States has an internal transportation system that is more dependent on personal ownership and usage of the automobile than that of any other major power.
This cannot be changed in the near future because practically everything we have built here since the Second World War has been built around the automobile. Our suburbs are much too dispersed and low density to be provided with accessible and economical mass transit. “Smart growth” cannot solve this problem – it can only affect what we build in the future, it can’t change what we’ve already built. Completely changing the pattern of the American landscape will take a long, long time.
We don’t have a long, long time to get it done. The world supply of oil and natural gas has recently passed its all-time peak production. (See the website of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, http://www.peakoil.net/.) This does not mean we are about to run out of either resource, now or in the next 50 years; but it does mean that, with each passing year, it will cost more and more to extract less and less from the earth. This will inevitably raise the price at the pump.
The rising price of fossil fuels will gradually cripple our economy, because everything else depends on automotive transportation. We use it to get to work, to shopping, to school, to recreation. Almost everything we buy in stores was shipped there, typically from very far away, by diesel-burning trucks. What will happen to the world’s greatest economy, when every important step in production and distribution costs significantly more than it does now?
And there are no realistic alternatives. Hydrogen, for instance, cannot be made to substitute for petroleum in the manner in which we have grown accustomed to using petroleum. We have had GD threads on this point before.
From The City in Mind, by James Howard Kunstler (Free Press, 2001), chapter on Atlanta, pp. 60, 73-75:
And the following comes from Mr. Kunstler’s website, http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary7.html:
There’s some bad times coming. The worst times since the 1930s. It’s going to affect the whole industrialized world, but it’s going to hit the U.S. harder than anywhere else. How can we hope to maintain an “empire” under such circumstances? The best we can hope for is just to survive as a nation. And we will survive. We will still be a great nation and a continental-scale power. But we won’t dominate the world any more, not for a long time to come.
/em Enters the realm of fantasy
I’d say that the US will eventually either be absorbed by a global democratic government (or possibly form the core of one) that resembles what the EU is today, or that there will be an economic collapse that will lead to the eventual disolution of the union, and incidentally destroy the worlds economy at the same time, propelling us into a new dark age. The shock on the faces of the rest of the world when they went down with those bloody Americans would almost be worth the pain and misery it would cause. (not really…this was another ‘joke’)
At any rate, if its a global super governement, I’d say that we are looking at the minimum of an additional 100 years for things to become cohesive enough and integrated enough for it to happen. As to an economic fall, I don’t see any of that magnitude on the horizon, but I suppose that a major war or epidemic could potentially trigger something like that and cause the collapse of the American ‘empire’ any time.
/em leaves the realm of fantasy
If you are just asking how long will we be ‘at the top of the heap’ though, that doesn’t necessarily follow collapse of our ‘empire’. After all, the French Empire and British Empire (and even Spanish to a certain extent) co-existed, and who was top dog went back and forth several times. I think that the growing economic might of Europe, especially as they tie themselves closer together and become stronger internally, will eventually rival America as an economic power…and will surpass it someday as well. With that power will come greater influence in world events also…again one day surpassing America’s. In that respect, economic and political, America probably won’t be ‘top of the heap’ from those perspectives more that 10-20 more years, tops. Militarily I’d say that America will remain ‘top of the heap’ for the forseeable future. All that though doesn’t follow from your OP, Biggirl…just because we aren’t ‘top of the heap’ doesn’t mean the end of our ‘empire’.
-XT
Very briefly:
Time-frame: unpredictable precisely because processes move so much faster these days. How many people in 1980 thought the Soviet Union would simply collapse by 1992? But this works both ways: either the crisis comes up so fast we can’t stop it, or it comes AND GOES so fast that we’re left on the other side wondering “What was THAT?” but in a good position to pick up the pieces.
One of the problems here is sheer economic/demographic inertial mass. The size of the economy is well known. As for demographics, unlike Britain, France, etc., most of our “subjects” are internal to the nation. Who can take over the function of superpower from someone with this kind of an economy, population, and social structures? When France and the UK ended up WW2 exhausted and ready to take the bench empire-wise, the USA and USSR were ready to step in… and within 50 years the latter fell apart, spent by the effort: even with the material and human resources to match the USA, it could not marshal them efficiently. The contenders right now would be the EU (if ever truly united), and maybe China. But a key to this is building up the kind of international net of clients that gives you power projection – including influencing the other superpowers’ economies.
My spec: barring catastrophe, #1 for at least another decade or two (whether or not a rival arises), major world power well past the mid-21st Century, with rank dependent on what contenders arise or how fast exhaustion sets in. And I’ll stop then as there could be a change in world political and economic structures such as to render the whole concept of superpower and a “fall” moot.
Uniqueness: The general mechanism of the evolution of American power may be within a particular model (subsumtion, breakup, bankruptcy, overpowerment) but the SPECIFICS will be unique. It’ sunlikely we’ll ever be able to point to X event as the American equivalent of X event in Brit, Roman or Islamic history.
Effect: probably similar to France or Britain – loss of #1 top-dog status and move into just one more of the top-10. Probably driven by considerations of economic and political sustainability. It could become just one long decade+ of stagnation (a-la Japan the last 10 years), that creates a demand that we take care of home first and allows others to fill the vacuums. Fast and brutal crash-and-burn collapse a-la-USSR would be unlikely because of that very inertia due to size (besides, that would take down with it so much of the world economy the Great Depression would look like the Good Old Days)
The biggest difference in my mind between now and past history is that the wealth and standards of living of the various people’s of the world is not necessarily viewed as a zero-sum game. Progress and economic growth are now better understood to be realized in an atmosphere of cooperation amongst nation-states and not subjugation (not universally is this view held of course). I think the term empire is now meaningless, the US has no desire to ‘empire’ over anyone.
One should not rely too heavily on Prof. Kennedy’s book - demonstrating his limitations, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers predicted that Japan was going to be the next Great Power. This demonstrates a certain lack of foresight on Prof. Kennedy’s part - he believed that Japan’s then-ascendant (he published in 1989) economic power was permanent, when it turns out that a large part of that economic power was in fact a stock- and property price bubble.
Further, Kennedy’s comparison of the USA to the British, French and Spanish Empires faced an internal flaw that he never fully addressed. Kennedy’s thesis was based upon the concept of “strategic overreach” - that, at some point, a Great Power lacked the wealth/resources to protect all of its interests that needed protection. When one is a Great Power, so much more of the world becomes strategically important that the military costs become prohibitive.
The problem is that the British/French/Spanish Empires all had military expenditures and levels of debt that exceeded (as a percentage of GPD, natch) the US military expenditures/debt levels by orders of magnitude.
Kennedy’s fundamental flaw, as demonstrated by his predictions for Japan, was that he took a 10-20 year period - the 1970’s and 80’s - and extrapolated the future from that brief period. Not the best way of predicting the future, assuming that there is any really good way of predicting the future.
Putting Prof. Kennedy and the Declinist school aside, is the US, eventually, going to stop being the predominant power? Probably yes, but unlike the Declinist theory, it is not inevitable. The US can maintain and even significantly increase its military power into the indefinite future; for all the size of the military budget, it is a historically small portion of the national economy. Instead, it depends upon the choices that other nations make. Is the EU going to develop a unified military and actually spend money on it? Is the EU going to reverse its demographic decline, either through increased birth rates or greatly relaxed immigration laws? Is China going to embark on political reforms and become the democracy necessary to catch up economically? Ditto India (yeah, I know it’s a democracy. Just not a very good one.) Etc.
Sua
China and India are developing so swiftly at the moment that it’s hard to imagine a future without them as major powers. My guess is that by around 2050 or so we’ll be playing the game of playing the two of them off against each other so as to maintain our own international influence. I expect that both of them will have more of the world’s economic output each by themselves than we will by then.
Over in this hemisphere, meanwhile, Brazil, you know, the one that’s the country of the future and always will be? does finally seem to be getting its act together in a consistent way. But even assuming that continues, the USA and Brazil together will be no match for the combination of China and India economically. And political influence does eventually follow economics. The Western Hemisphere is slowly going to become irrelevant, and will probably be a relatively insignificant political player in the 22nd century.
Now all I have to do is find a way to live until then so I can see if I’m right.
First off, while I wouldn’t say that America’s decline is inevitable, I would say it is quite likely. We are currently straining our military budget, not to the point that it hurts, but we are seeing the beginings of a call to over-involve ourselves militarily in world affairs.
Second, our industrial base has been waning for some time, followed closely by our technology base. In our current modern era, these are key pieces to remaining a powerful world force.
Internally we are suffering greatly from polarization among individuals and groups. This is perhaps our most difficult challenge. As we segregate and polarize on issues, we become incapable of acting in a decisive manner. Also, it is important to note that the two primary political parties are now playing tug of war with the public and using events to strengthern the party hold on govenment in all corners of the country to the detriment of society as a whole (In short, why fix something when it may work better for us to let the current party take the heat and get voted out). We have successfully failed to educate people in their basic rights, have abdicated personal responsibility and placed the interest of the individual over the interest of the whole.
We have become an overly-indulgent, self-interested, uneducated, drug-yourself-to-not-feel-crappy bunch of drones living off sound-bites and assumptions about what is right. (but I digress)
Between the internal pressures and the victim roles most people adopt, we are becoming incapable of functioning as a healthy society. This polarization, lack of interest outside of ourselves, and the external pressures that will grow will force us to either implode, be absorbed, or leave us, like Rome, open to invasion and loss of independence.
How long all of this takes to play out is anybody’s guess (History degree or other) but, unless we learn our rights, and learn to cherish them, to prove that we possess what we profess (All men are created equal), and learn to stand with those who love freedom in spite of our differences we may have with them, in short, unless we start trying to live up to the ideals on which this country was founded, we have no hope of slowing our slide into the waste bin of former international powers.
It is not enough to say, “We are Americans” we must, individually and corporately live up to what being an American is supposed to mean.
BrainGlutton finished his post with :
There’s some bad times coming. The worst times since the 1930s. It’s going to affect the whole industrialized world, but it’s going to hit the U.S. harder than anywhere else. How can we hope to maintain an “empire” under such circumstances? The best we can hope for is just to survive as a nation. And we will survive. We will still be a great nation and a continental-scale power. But we won’t dominate the world any more, not for a long time to come.
I agree that bad times are coming. I have followed the peak oil debate for a long time, and the data coming in now is frightening. Mr Simmons in particular has some scary things to say, all presented quite calmly and with unasailable logic. He is on VP Cheney’s energy panel and also makes addresses to Congress and other important international bodies.
You say that times are coming that are worse than anything since the great depression. If these predictions on peak oil are correct, then the transition times will make the great depression look like the roaring 20’s. Our whole international system (global economy) depends on buying cheap raw materials in one place, shipping them to be cheaply processed in another place, shipping the parts to another place to be assembled, then shipping the final product for sale all over the world. Food production is entirely dependent on fossil fuels (mechanized farming and shipping of final product) and also depedent on oil and natural gas products (fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides). The wolrd economy is structured to grow, and if growth slows down, you get recession, if growth actually stops you get depression, but all of the growth depends on energy being cheaply available, especially for transportation. When that energy is no longer cheap, no longer easily produced, and no longer available for some people, things will get a lot worse than the 1930’s and from some of the most recent talks (like the conference you refer to in your quotes) we might be on the precipe NOW. This is not some “in 30 years your kids will have to deal with this” it is going to happen to us now in the next few years and may have already started (price of oil, interest in the middle east, US military increase largest EVER for the last 6 months).
Look into things, question sources, and become aware. The more people who know about the peak of oil , the better chance the whole world has of avoiding disaster when we have to transition to less portable, more expensive, and harder to develop energy sources.
Here are a few good links to go with what was already posted :
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/index.html
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/
Best Regards
God Bless
Adamant
This is not a US problem, but a global problem. We are not talking about the decline of US influence, indeed US influence may increase for a while (we control most of the remaining oil or we can if we choose to, and our military will be the last one to run out of gas for planes, tanks, etc).
I don’t really know who’s correct, but Michael C. Lynch, Chief Energy Economist, DRI-WEFA, Inc. seems to disagree with the experts you cited.
If the alarming prediction were accurate (or close), then I would imagine that a world summit would have to be convened (not that it would neccessarily accomplish much), and a country like the US would need to radically change national policy (and provide guidelines for local leaders to change policy) regarding energy usage, R&D allocation, etc. In a hurry.
When do you think a reasonable consensus of experts will occur? Because I think the disagreement between experts is what is preventing any substantial govt action and media coverage from taking place…
Posted by Windwalker:
Huh? When has “disagreement between experts” ever produced that kind of inaction/inattention to a public issue?
The price of oil is about $10 a barrel below what it was in the early 80s, and way below what the alleged experts were shouting it would be by now back in those days.
The normal state of the oil market is the same as that for any other commodity: glut. From time to time, someone pops his head up and says the world is going to come to an end because the commodity in question (food, oil, wood even back in the 19th century, when they thought we’d run out of that) is getting scarce. That person, as Gertrude Stein would have correctly noted, is either naive or selling something.
The market will find a way. Yes, there’ll be a crisis and dislocations when the time comes. There’ll also be fortunes made by those who find the solutions. I guarantee you that none of us here can visualize what those solutions will be. (Well, one of us might be able to, but we’re not going to know who the correct genius was until after the fact.)
When I got my first full time job in 1979, gas was 1.40 a gallon. Today, it’s still that price, more or less, even though taxes on gas have been raised between then and now. That is not the behavior of a commodity in a state of scarcity.
Seriously. Anyone remember Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb?
Maybe not inattention, since those with more alarming opinions sometimes get heard. But for issues that are more subtle (such as global warming), there doesn’t appear to be any sense of urgency in how the country at large actually deals with it. I tend to think that it is due to conflicting testimony from “experts”, though obviously this is just a guess. It is probably more for matters that would neccessitate a significant lifestyle change, as getting people, govt, businesses to make that change would require a great deal of weight to challenge the inertia of the status quo, a weight that conflicting expert testimony would probably not provide.
Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, but that’s the way I see it. Feel free to correct me.
- Wind