Seeing as all great empires have come and gone, how long do you think the US before suffering the fate of the:
Romans
Ottomans
Mongols
China
Holy Roman Empire
Spanish
Dutch
French
Egyptians
Greeks
Persians
Spain
even England
and others that escape my simple mind.
All of the above had their time in the spotlight. Some like the Romans and Han China lasted hundreds of years at the top. As far as I know, the US have really only come into world prominence post WWII. So in terms of the world beaters gig, the US are still toddlers in comparison.
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Ming Chinese historical novel) began with “They say the momentum of history was ever thus: the empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide.”
Some truth in that? Yes? No?
At a glance, it seems that all great empires that ever were, imploded either due to internal corruption or expansionist hubris. In this age in instant information, would the U.S. be immune from the same fate? Or rather, in this age of instant information and in light of current events, would the the U.S. run it’s course of world dominance and fizzle out quicker than all of the above?
Will the U.S. out last the Romans or the Egyptians or the Chinese? We’re counting the zenith of world dominance for the respective civilizations.
The Founders believed the grand experiment known as the US Constitution would last no more than 20 years. We’ve managed a bit more than ten times that belief.
If the Bush Administration is re-elected in 2004, along with continuing Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, I give the US no more than 10 to 15 years before civil war breaks out.
My reasons are not solely blamed upon Bush and the Republicans. The apathetic electorate will share the blame, but not realize their grevious error in time.
Since when is the US an empire? Sure it controls a vast tract of the Earth’s land, but that land is America itself not far flung colonies and protectorates. All the examples of empires listed controlled vast resources/countries spread out far away from the seat of the empire, and these countries were comprised for the most part of non-citizens of these empires.
Unless the US has massive plans to take over several other countries besides Iraq and Afghanistan I don’t see how they come close to fitting the label of empire.
This subject has come up before. Personally, I think growing economic alliances with Canada, Mexico and eventually other western hemisphere states will eventually render the “United States” moot. I expect it’ll start with currency unification and the overall transition will be peaceful rather than violent.
Wow! That sounds just like an old Marxists wet dream. The people will rise up! Revolution! Dictatorship of the workers! I, me and you are all one of the people; can you see yourself rising up, taking up arms and start shooting in the streets? Judging by previous such revolutions, these things are very very bloody. How many million american lives would you call acceptable loss figures getting rid of a rightful democratic government, you happen to dislike? Perhaps you would like to clarify what exactly you mean by “the people”? What people is that? A majority? If you’re a majority why the heck don’t you just vote in another government? If the electorate is apathetic, what on earth makes you think they would bother rise up for anything less excting that the next football game? Naa. Like must other wet dreams, this one is just not going to happen. Within the next 10 – 15 years the most drastic that’s likely to happen is that the people will rise up and go to work.
Before answering the OP. You need to specify more clearly in what way you think the US is an empire. Economic empire? The US is not now the largest economic power, the EU is. Land occupation empire? A no-starter. It takes a lot more that a few foreign bases and an unpopular war in a third would country to get into the same league with Rome and Macedonians. Cultural empire? Is there such a thing? In short what empire is that you’re on about?
Well, England’s still “there”–I can look at a map and see it sitting right there fat and happy. But it’s now one part of a country called Great Britain. I think that may happen to America eventually–confederation of some sort with Canada and Central America at the very least, with the former being the dominant partner via sheer population and dynamism but not quite as alone as it is now.
Still, I think the OP is flawed on its surface. The US is not an empire the same way the other places you mention were and equating McDonald’s in India with the Roman legions is disingenuous.
It is becoming rapidly overpopulated, with 57,000 legal immigrants coming in each week, and nearly as many illegals in addition. Since both major parties want to give citizenship to the more than 10 million illegals already here, and since we could have another 10 million illegals by then who end up with citizenship, the voting power of anther 40 million people who are currently not US citizens, will drastically change the political power base, and the historical culture and historical voting patterns will be drastically changed: probably much more liberal by 2018.
Within 10-15 years, there will be very little manufacturing left in America, with nearly all of its factories closed and moved to asia and mexico. It will actually produce: nothing.
By 15 years from now, most of the Americans skilled in high tech will be retired, as well as most of the highly skilled other professionals. Since few younger high tech professionals will be here due to outsourcing to asia of most IT, engineering, and other high tech jobs, most of Americans will be low skilled, service workers.
The United States has a combined deficit of a trillion dollars a year, $480 billion in its federal budget, and $40 billion a month in its trade deficit. Social security is actuarily unsound, and it too will be bankrupt within 15 years. The dollar will become worthless for international trade, and the nation will go bankrupt running trillion dollar deficits each year. The United States will not even be able to afford the interest payments on all the trillions of dollars it will owe by 2018, esp since most americans will not have high paying jobs - no factory workers, and no high tech workers.
The US military will continue to decline, as it has for nearly 20 years, with few people in the armed forces, and most of its weapons very old and obsolete since it will not be able to afford to build new updated weapons running trillion dollar deficits each year from now until then. The world military and economic power by 2018 will most certainly be china, and the United States by then will be mostly dependent on china for most of its manufactured goods and will not be in any position to oppose whatever china will want to do anywhere in the world.
To address the list of failed empires proposed by the OP:
Firstly, I don’t see where the political and economic stability of the past forty years or so enjoyed by Spain, Holland, France or England (and, more recently, by China) is all that much of a comedown from the constant warfare and societal inequities of their previous histories, however glorious. For the rest, empires in which the ruling powers exist primarily through use of force and cruelty are inherently unstable; how is the US like the Romans, Ottomans or Persians? And why not include Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the above list?
I see no particular compelling reason at this time for declaring a 10 to 15-year time frame before, for example, a civil war breaks out in the USA. Who, pray tell, would be fighting with whom, and for what?
Likewise, I find most of Susanann’s points unconvincing, if not incoherent; point one in particular makes no sense at all. I could potentially buy the arguments in points 4 and 5 as having a significant economic effect, but believe (s)he is overstating the influence of the deficit and SS insolvency on the stability of the US federation.
Over a longer span, maybe 60-100 years, the US, and all other countries, will have to come to grips with a decline in availability of fossil fuels and minerals of various types. I would expect this competition for dwindling resources to be of greater importance to the coherence of the US federation than anything I can think of that might happen over the next 20 years or so.
Heady words, though they lack some insight. Do you not think that deficits and trade gaps have not existed for the entire history of governments? There may be one now, but another election and you may see change. If things continue along only one path, then maybe, maybe you’ll see some of this scenario, but I doubt it. There have been massive problems in the past, and th US has survived (Great Depression, anyone?) with flying colours.
And hnestly, do you think all manufacturing and IT will be out-sourced? Any credible cites for this? It would be both politically and economically foolish to do so.
I think there is a basis for comparison with the other empires, if only along the line of overall power. I think it is more likely that we will see a protectionist phase in the future as governments worldwide attempt to fight off globalization to some degree, followed by more economic integration and cooperation that will break down traditional nationalistic barriers.
Susanann, points 1. - 4. sound like reasonable possibilities, but I don’t know where got point 5. from. It could - in a far future - be a consequence from 4., but - as you said - a decline in the last 20 years???
Is this a reference to the third reich? You know, it only lastet a couple of years …
Do you have any idea how long 1000 years is? That’s an awful long time!
1000 years back, that’s the middle ages. In 1003 the US was inhabited by natives, Europe was dust and dirt and people hitting themselves with clubs and stones - well, almost. Anyway, the only interesting civilizations were arabic and chinese.
I can’t see how anybody could have foreseen 1000 years ago how the world is now.
As China continues to embrace capitalism, our economy will continue to decline. Any country with a billion people who would stand in line for a job that pays $2 a day can easily become the next economic superpower, and the US will join the UK on the margins of history.
There is a maximum number of immigrant visas that can be issued every year. I couldn’t find the number with a quick search, but it is somewhere around 1,000,000. That’s 20k per week. These stats http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/msrjuly03/BENEFIT.HTM show that there were 63k relative petitions and 56k permanent resident adjustments approved in July, but that’s not visas issued - the approvals go to the state department and they issue the visas (subject to limitations set in law).
Also, how many of these immigrants stay? If you figure that the vast majority of immigrants that stick around will eventually get citizenship, then the naturalization numbers should tell a better tale (albeit with a delay - most immigrants aren’t eligible for citizenship until they have been here for 5 years). The stats for naturalization are here http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/msrjuly03/NATZ.HTM, and they show that about 590k were approved in 2002, which works out to less than 12k per week.
So what is it? 57k? 20k? 12k?
Transportation is a major cost. When (not if) wages in China go up, it will be unprofitable to produce there. It is already starting down that path - some regions in China are now at the wage levels of Indonesia, which was (note: past tense) a cheap manufacturing place 10 years ago. Where can you go from China? India, perhaps? Africa, not likely - instability has its costs. Some manufacturing will always be here, because transportation is just too damn expensive (obvious example - building materials). Some manufacturing will always be “there” (obvious example - cell phones), because transportation cost is almost non-existant. The point is, it isn’t a one-way street.
You can’t have it both ways. First you say we have a zillion immigrants (a large percentage of which are highly skilled - higher than in the general US population), then you say we will have no skilled workforce. Which is it?
Finally, a valid point! I’ve chopped the rest, but not because I disagree. The fiscal irresponsibility of the current administration is truly scary. Even moreso as the GOP hails itself as the party of fiscal responsibilty.
The US won’t be able to oppose China because they supply DVD players? The Chinese suppliers won’t make much money unless we buy the DVD players. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship. A bit slanted towards our benefit right now, and I expect that will even out, but I can’t see it becoming lopsided the other way anytime soon.
Perhaps, but you have a nation with massive disparities in wages. A “rich” 200 Million nation and a destitute 1 Billion nation staring each other down. If you thought class conflict in the early 20th century West was fun this one should be on your “must see” list. I think a fair bit of future Chinese policy will to heavily subsidize the rural population and resulting unemployment. That’s going to cost, and given the numbers, cost big.