And even when I link to metrics that show that the US is clearly #1, I get ignored.
But since you asked again…
From quick research, the net worth of the country as defined by the UN shows the US has $118 trillion in human, physical, and natural capital, more than double that of the # 2 country, Japan, with $55 trillion (per capita figures are $385k and $436k, respectively.) China comes in with $20 trillion, or $14k per person.
Therefore, per capita, Chinese assets are about 3.6% of the US’s. Were the Chinese to come to US per-capita levels of national net worth, the total net worth of China would be around $525 trillion, and at Japan per-capita levels, close to $600 trillion.
Looking at the report, China increase its national net worth from $12 trillion to $20 trillion from 1990 to 2008, an $8 trillion gain. Impressive, of course. But US national wealth increased from $86 trillion to $118 trillion, a $32 trillion gain in the same period.
In other words, between 1990 and 2008, the US added the equivalent of one-and-a-half 2008-era China’s to its balance sheet.
And, since you asked, here are some other comparisons…
The increase in US net worth ($32 trillion) between 1990 and 2008 equals the total 2008 net worth of:
… 5 Australia’s
… 4 Brazil’s
… 3 Canada’s
… 2.5 France’s
… 1.5 Germany’s
… 5 India’s
… .6 Japan’s
… 21 Norway’s
… 3 Russia’s (the only country (that I’ve noticed) that has lost wealth since 1990)
… 2.5 United Kingdom’s
Ireland is #1? Well, that’s a joke metric then. And note that Canada, France and Germany all rank lower than the US in that metric.
I’ll tell you the metric you should look at: Which country has the most people trying to immigrate there. I don’t have the data, but I’ be shocked if it wasn’t the US, or if we weren’t at least in the top 5.
You are correct, sir. Using OECD data (which has the happy effect of comparing peers, and nations with a lot of immigrants who are war refugees), the U.S. was indeed #1 in average national inflow of immigrants for the period 2001-2010, at 1.05 million per year. Germany was second with 604,000.
This, of course, doesn’t include illegal immigrants, who also flock to the U.S.
[QUOTE=dataguy]
First, about the term “banana republic”. Here’s the Wikipedia definition.
“Banana republic is a political science term for a politically unstable country whose economy is largely dependent on the export of a single limited-resource product (ex. Bananas.) It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy that comprises the elites of business, politics, and the military.[1] This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions and thereby exploits the country’s economy.”
[/QUOTE]
So…no. We aren’t. And we aren’t becoming one. Glad we cleared that up. Moving on…
By just about every metric there is that is used to judge world leadership. Since you seem to concede the military aspect, I guess the other aspects would be cultural and economic. Let me turn it around…what countries do you consider to outstrip the US for world leadership in those categories, and what do you base your assertion on?
I find it interesting that instead of addressing those posts you are trying to hand wave it away as Rah Rah! American Number One!!!11!1one!!1 type thinking. Perhaps you could actually address what people are saying instead of trying this sort of silly end around.
So what? What has any of this to do with world leadership? When was America EVER number one in those categories? Being a world leader isn’t about being number one in certain vertical (and as noted by others cherry picked) categories, it’s about dominating in the big 3…economic, cultural and military. It’s hard to argue that the US isn’t dominate in those since we have the largest economy, our culture permeates throughout the world and our military is the most powerful. This isn’t Rah Rah! America! it’s reality.
Again, so what? Again, lets turn it around…how are the countries that do rank in your cherry picked top 10 world leaders? Show me why they are, outside of your vertical cherry picked fields. And you might want to consider that the US probably NEVER ranked in the top in those fields in our history…and most likely neither did the old Soviet Union either. Does that mean we never were a dominant world power? Never a world leader?
So, is it your contention that China is the dominant world leader now?
Politically, we dominate. The alliances we belong to are the most powerful world wide. The UN resides in the US. Economically we have the largest single economy in the world. Every country of any economic status is our trading partner, and many countries are dependent on their trade with the US. Powerful nations and their corporations build factories in the US and use US labor to better serve their primary (or secondary) markets. Militarily we are absolutely dominant, especially coupled to the military alliances we belong to have have large influence with, and no country is in our league. Culturally we are, again, dominant, with our own culture permeating the world. There are very few places you can go to on the planet where they don’t know what a Coke is, or McDonald’s, or the latest Hollywood film. I’ve seen kids wearing tee shirts with US products on them in remote villages in central and south America, as well as in some Middle Eastern countries, and in a lot of them they know at least something about the US. They follow our news, they follow our gossip, they watch or at least know about our scandals and our TV and entertainment media, and they follow our elections to a certain extent. Decisions made in the US often have global impacts. THAT’S what it means to be a world leader in realistic, real world terms. At this time no other country comes close.
None of this means that the US is the best place to live, or that our culture is the greatest (except the the extent that it’s so pervasive world wide compared to other countries), or that we walk on water and have no problems or issues or always do the right thing. There are probably a lot of countries that have better health care, that have better programs for the poor or aging, that have better social programs or better quality of life or whatever other cherry picked stat you want to hang things on. None of them have anything to do with the US being a world leader though, and none of them have squat to do with the US supposedly being a banana republic or declining.
Well, that’s a metric whose meaning is open to interpretation. But in raw numbers, sure, it may be that the US is the worlds number one immigration target. Again, not sure what that would mean (where are they coming from, what’s better here than where they are, etc…)
So far just about everything mentioned as an area of US excellence falls in two categories: Military and GDP, which are surely related.
These seem to be the only two dimensions that matter here: We have the most guns and we have the most money.
It means people want to live here, and we let them. Others want to live here, and we don’t let them, nor do we try very hard to stop them.
Not as much as you’d think, look at the % of GDP column on this chart. Japan is quite wealthy, for instance, but spends just 1% of GDP on its military. It’s a choice, not a natural outcome of being wealthy.
And technological innovation, particularly in a few select fields, and our culture is incredibly widespread.
What metrics are you thinking of that the U.S. is so bad at?
ETA: And we do literally have the most guns.
What do you want out of this discussion? You ask if the US is or will be a banana republic which is at best hyperbole. It isn’t.
Now, what do you want? You seem to be trying to find an indirect way to engage in venting/axe grinding about something. but you’re trying to find a clever way of doing it indirectly. Unfortunately, you are not succeeding. Why don’t you just do it directly and without hyperbole instead of asking if the US is becoming a banana republic?
[QUOTE=dataguy]
Well, that’s a metric whose meaning is open to interpretation. But in raw numbers, sure, it may be that the US is the worlds number one immigration target. Again, not sure what that would mean (where are they coming from, what’s better here than where they are, etc…)
[/QUOTE]
Seems simple enough to me…it means they are coming here and we are letting come in, and they are doing so more than any other country.
Perhaps you are being overwhelmed by the number of posts and trying to field them all. You are missing cultural and political. As to Military and GDP being related, no…that’s incorrect. You could look at the EU as an example. They are pretty comparable to the US when taken as a whole, and their military is much, much weaker taken in the aggregate. Mostly it’s a choice…they choose not to spend as much as we do (mainly because, you know, we are here to do it for them…European social programs are built on American military strength since we do that little thing for them and put teeth into the alliances we are in). It’s not all about spending, though, since China spends roughly half of what we do militarily (not as a percentage of GDP, which they actually spend more), but they don’t have half as capable a military.
Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you’ve missed other aspects that people have tried to tell you. We have the greatest economy, we have the largest, most capable military, and culturally we are dominant as well. Politically, we have the greatest influence because of the convergence of all of these (and a few other) factors, which is why we are the world leader.
I think this pretty much sums things up. All of these “quality of life” things are totally irrelevant. Nothing to be gained by demonstrating leadership in any of those areas, huh?
As for American “culture” being dominant, this seems to mean American “products” (such as movies). This is not what I think of when I use the term culture, and when I think of the characteristics of American culture, it mostly comes down to excessive material consumption.
Whereas, when I think of French culture, I think of food and art. When I think of German culture I think of finely engineered machines. Just as examples. And I consider them both leaders in that aspect of their culture–world leaders.
The Philippines, Indonesia and Columbia all have Banana Republic stores.
[QUOTE=dataguy]
Whereas, when I think of French culture, I think of food and art. When I think of German culture I think of finely engineered machines. Just as examples. And I consider them both leaders in that aspect of their culture–world leaders.
[/QUOTE]
Funny, when I think of French culture, I think of ugly cars and snooty waiters. When I think of German culture, my brain goes into vapor lock like Norman’s did on Star Trek. So your opinions are just that…your opinions. There is very little relationship between them and objective fact.
You’re using “world leader” to mean “nation which is leading in category x”; most people use it to mean “nation which is powerful and influencial”. This explains part of the disconnect here.
Perhaps you’re too close to American culture, like someone in a tub who stops feeling “wet” after a few minutes, it’s too familiar to you to stand out. Maybe consult some non-Americans on what they consider American culture to be?
So Porsches and BMWs are not considered among the world’s best engineered cars? French wine and food is not considered some of the world’s finest food? This is all just my opinion? Really?
