The end of "The Age of America"?

[Unbound Draykon]

By 2016 China will surpass America as the economic superpower. The end of "The Age of America"

[Dantius]

The problem is that that doesn't account for the fact that China has about 4x America's population, so even if the absolute GDP is larger, we can still provide a standard of living that is 4x higher than China's simply because we have vastly fewer people. Furthermore, the US spends nearly ten times China's annual defense budged on the DOD every year, so even in spite of bloating and inefficiency, we're still far and away the greatest military superpower on the planet.

 

Plus, you're forgetting America's ace in the hole- cultural dominance. You don't see China's leaders walking around in robes and queues and calling their Premier the "Son of Heaven" anymore- they act, think, and generally behave in a manner consistent with Western (European/American) values. And even though it is probably no longer considered politically correct to say so and I will no doubt catch a lot of flack for saying it, post-Enlightenment, scientific, European values are capable of providing objectively the highest standard of living and the greatest material progress for all people living under them. Even if the most powerful country (ies?) in the world is/are no longer America , so long as they follow the same set of values, it's still the "Age of America", because it's the strongest system, not the strongest country, that eventually shapes history.

 

PS: I personally don't put too much store in apocalyptic "ZOMG CHINA WILL BY TEH US" predictions. It's just tired old 1880 era Yellow Peril arguments recycled with a new twist and a polish ("The dirty Chinese are out-breeding us! We need to do something!" --> "The commie Chinese are buying us out! We need to do something!"). China has never posed any serious threat to the continued existence of the US, and probably will not in either my or your lifetime.

[Sullust]

We're only reaching the end of America Part i. I hope you're well prepared for America Part ii. There will be a brief intermission and snacks in the lobby.

[Karoka]

America is just like Rome. Therefore, it will fall just like Rome. Except with nuclear explosions.

[Randomizer]

In the 1980s they talked about Japan Inc. taking over the world and then Japan went into a tailspin. China might become the next big thing, but they will be forced to change in ways that will slow them down. No more cutting corners in selling goods with substandard materials, pirated goods. ....

[Callie]

In the unlikely event that Donald Trump gets elected...

 

*shudders*

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

In the unlikely event that Donald Trump gets elected...

*shudders*

Is he actually running? I thought he was just lonely.

[Callie]

He hasn't made any official decisions yet, but the media can't seem to get enough of him.

[Alorael at Large]

The fact that America lacks total military and economic dominance doesn't mean it isn't still militarily and economically dominant. America is a giant in the international landscape and that's not changing quickly. Will it be one forever? Forever is a long time, but the end of America has been just over the horizon for quite a long time now. Not as long as the imminent end of the world, mind you, but a while nonetheless.

 

—Alorael, who imagines that there will be a showdown, although maybe a slow and not very dramatic one, between capitalism+democracy and capitalism+authoritarianism. It's not actually entirely clear which works best if they're both working optimally.

[ex post slarto]

Obama's re-election seems like a sure thing at this point. He isn't wildly popular with the public, but he's significantly more popular than anyone in congress, from either party. He also seems to be very planful with both his words and actions, with the result that -- even if you disagree with his words and his actions -- it's hard to attack him personally, rather than just attacking his ideology.

 

(The opposition called Clinton immoral, and Bush stupid, and both were attacked for being poor symbols of America. Compare to attacks against Obama that have to rely on a crazy pastor, or the fact that Oprah likes him too much, or questions about state recordkeeping from half a century ago. Obama's policies and ideologies are attacked just as often and effectively as Clinton's and Bush's were, but there just isn't much exposed flesh when it comes to attacking him as a person.)

 

Additionally, Obama's 2008 election campaign was arguably one of the best-designed American campaigns in decades. It was really canny. Obama did have the general hatred of Bush to ride on, but now he's an incumbent, which is almost better.

 

This is all to explain why Trump is being taken seriously: no experienced Republicans with serious chances at the Presidency want to run, because the odds will probably be better for them in 2016. It's not that a Republican win in 2012 is impossible, it's just less likely than usual.

[Goldengirl]

The 'Age of America' has been ending for a while now. The United States already had its golden age at the expense of the world when serving as the breadbasket, factory, and bank of the world while the rest of the world recovered from the ravages of WWII. The long post-war boom ended, though, when the rest of the world stopped rebuilding and transitioned towards thriving.

 

There were mistakes, but some good things happened. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine rebuilding of Turkey and Greece, for instance, while being motivated out of fear, helped to shape a positive new world. The United Nations is an organization for globalism that is unprecedented in its capacity. Now, that said, there were mistakes. Vietnam, Cold War balancing, antagonism toward small Communist powers (North Korea, for instance), to name just a few of the major ones.

 

The United States laid the grave for its decline at the beginning of its golden age. When there was the capability to reign supreme in the world and impose dominance through superior military and economy, the US favored the subtle touches of soft power in a more generalized sense. This means that, yes, American unipolarity will not be eternal, but it will most likely last longer than it would have otherwise, even if its reign is less grand.

 

I cannot predict US hegemony being replaced with Chinese, Russian, or EU hegemony; the stage has been set, partially by the United States itself, for a gradual transition to multipolarity, not another age of two competing powers. The European Union will be an interesting political entity to watch grow, as it may be greater than the sum of its parts. Also, the BRIC countries are, of course, going to become increasingly influential, alongside the United States itself.

[Soul of Wit]

Trump is not going to run. The poor sheep who represents the GOP will lose--horribly--to Obama. This is 1996 all over again, except the Republicans are putting themselves even deeper in a hole. Seniors vote reliably and do not take kindly to intimations that Medicare is going bye-bye. Even the smallest improvement in the economy will assist Obama greatly. The Dems won't regain the House, but the White House is theirs until at least 2016.

 

The US press is in dire shape. The US financial press even more so. You'd be better off watching The Daily Show than perusing most of the US press.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

In the unlikely event that Donald Trump gets elected...

*shudders*

Scary indeed. I'd probably make a better candidate.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Obama's re-election seems like a sure thing at this point.

I certainly hope not.

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

The US press is in dire shape. The US financial press even more so. You'd be better off watching The Daily Show than perusing most of the US press.

Actually, just read half a page of the comics, followed by the editorial cartoon(s). I get more news in one hour that way than any given week's worth of newspapers combined.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Scary indeed. I'd probably make a better candidate.

Here's a quick litmus test to see whether or not you're a better candidate than Trump.

Q. How many times have you managed to run a casino into the ground?

A. Zero
B. One
C. Two
D. Three or more

If you responded anything other than (d), congratulations! You're more fiscally responsible than Donald Trump! And do keep in mind that the person you elect will largely determine the fiscal direction this country will take over the next four years. Whoop-de-do.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Here's a quick litmus test to see whether or not you're a better candidate than Trump.

Q. How many times have you managed to run a casino into the ground?

A. Zero
B. One
C. Two
D. Three or more

A. Definitely A. I may not be the smartest person out there, but I definitely have more brains than that.

Quote:

And do keep in mind that the person you elect will largely determine the fiscal direction this country will take over the next four years.

That's one of the key factors in determining how I vote.

[Sudanna]

It was really not necessary to answer the question, Mystic.

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Obama's re-election seems like a sure thing at this point. He isn't wildly popular with the public, but he's significantly more popular than anyone in congress, from either party. He also seems to be very planful with both his words and actions, with the result that -- even if you disagree with his words and his actions -- it's hard to attack him personally, rather than just attacking his ideology.

U.S. involvement in the Libyan Civil War could potentially cause him problems. Otherwise, I agree that his reelection chances are fairly high.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Lier Beneath the Silent Skies

It was really not necessary to answer the question, Mystic.

Nor was it necessary to tell me so.

I just wanted to prove that I was the better candidate.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Obama's re-election seems like a sure thing at this point. He isn't wildly popular with the public, but he's significantly more popular than anyone in congress, from either party. He also seems to be very planful with both his words and actions, with the result that -- even if you disagree with his words and his actions -- it's hard to attack him personally, rather than just attacking his ideology.

U.S. involvement in the Libyan Civil War could potentially cause him problems. Otherwise, I agree that his reelection chances are fairly high.

I doubt it. Libya is fairly low on the radar of most Americans today. It's nowhere near what Iraq or Afghanistan was during W's term. In fact, I'm actually quite surprised that it hasn't received far more coverage than it has.

[Rowen]

Libya? What is that? I type of food dish?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Libya? What is that? I type of food dish?

Fun fact: One of my friends works as a teacher, and he assigned a current events paper to his class. One of his students returned a paper detailing the evils wrought on Libya by its three dictators: Qaddafi, Gaddafi, and Khadafi.

I found it hilarious. Depressing, but hilarious.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

U.S. involvement in the Libyan Civil War could potentially cause him problems. Otherwise, I agree that his reelection chances are fairly high.

Libya could definitely hurt him, but I doubt there are few politicians who would run against him on that point. Plus, if he sticks to his promised dates for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, it should be far less concerning.

[Kelandon]

Our involvement in Libya is, as far as I can tell, fairly minimal and hugely multilateral. NATO is leading it, and Britain and France are providing more support than we are (did I read correctly that they have military advisors on the ground?). It's totally different from Iraq.

 

Now, um, it might be sort of like Vietnam in the 1950's, but that's another issue. Slippery slope and all.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Obama's re-election seems like a sure thing at this point. He isn't wildly popular with the public, but he's significantly more popular than anyone in congress, from either party. He also seems to be very planful with both his words and actions, with the result that -- even if you disagree with his words and his actions -- it's hard to attack him personally, rather than just attacking his ideology.

he made quite a few high-profile campaign promises that he was largely unable or unwilling to follow through on, although i guess that arguably goes into the "political" basket rather than the "personal" basket

[ex post slarto]

And those have not haunted him much, because they relate to issues the far left cared about more than independents (e.g., Guantanamo). Certainly nothing on the scale of Bush Sr's "read my lips: no new taxes" debacle.

 

(Edit: To be clear, I'm not defending any of his policies or maneuvers, I'm just assessing the impact of these unfulfilled promises on his political capital.)

[Alex]

Things like torture and detention without trial are supposedly what those undemocratic Chinese inflict upon their subjects.

 

Oh wait.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

I just wanted to prove that I was the better candidate.

I'd like to see your birth certificate sir. And please, remember that Hawaii doesn't count.

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Libya? What is that? I type of food dish?

Fun fact: One of my friends works as a teacher, and he assigned a current events paper to his class. One of his students returned a paper detailing the evils wrought on Libya by its three dictators: Qaddafi, Gaddafi, and Khadafi.

I found it hilarious. Depressing, but hilarious.

Yeah... The more stupid a person is, the funnier they can be.

[Student of Trinity]

The USA will likely remain the greatest military and cultural power in the world for quite a few decades to come. And by many measures also the greatest economic power, I expect. But the USA will not be in a class by itself, far above everybody else, for all that much longer. Already, by some measures and in some respects, it is contending with challenges from peers.

 

I don't see how that's bad for Americans or for their country. I suppose that if you're really status-conscious, then it's alarming to have to think about keeping up with the Joneses, when you can remember how the Joneses used to live in a shack at the bottom of your drive. But really, if you're a rich family with a big house, isn't it better to live in nice subdivision where everybody has a pool in the back and tree in the front, and not just you?

 

American supremacy is definitely on the decline. America, not so much.

[ex post slarto]

"America is a mistake, admittedly a gigantic mistake, but a mistake nevertheless." -- Sigmund Freud

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

"America is a mistake, admittedly a gigantic, engorged, throbbing- err, mistake, but a mistake nevertheless. Sorry, got sidetracked there" -- Sigmund Freud

FYT

[Masquerade]

Originally Posted By: Unbound Draykon

By 2016 China will surpass America as the economic superpower. The end of "The Age of America"

im sorry but all that that made me think of was the song "the age of Aquarius" and now its stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Master1

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

I just wanted to prove that I was the better candidate.

I'd like to see your birth certificate sir. And please, remember that Hawaii doesn't count.

I'd be more than happy to provide, should I be crazy enough to actually run.

[Artemis~]

Imo, I'm american and I still don't think we're the bomb-dot-com. Most European countries actually surpass us in technology and are higher are the human development index scale.

 

I don't think the US has much on China anyways.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Imo, I'm american and I still don't think we're the bomb-dot-com. Most European countries actually surpass us in technology and are higher are the human development index scale.

Technology, I doubt, simply because of the fact that the US military spends about a kajillion dollars on R&D in order to stop countries from surpassing us in technology, or at least in technology that could prove to be a threat to our security. Plus, it's easy to score high on the HDI when you're a tiny country with a very homogeneous and xenophobic population, like many high-scoring European countries are (Switzerland, for example). While the US may be somewhat xenophobic, we're certainly neither small nor homogeneous, so we tend to have problems ensuring that our citizens have thigh highest standard of living possible, because the government has decided that some things are more important than that, like security and infrastructure and so forth.

[Artemis~]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Technology, I doubt, simply because of the fact that the US military spends about a kajillion dollars on R&D in order to stop countries from surpassing us in technology, or at least in technology that could prove to be a threat to our security. Plus, it's easy to score high on the HDI when you're a tiny country with a very homogeneous and xenophobic population, like many high-scoring European countries are (Switzerland, for example). While the US may be somewhat xenophobic, we're certainly neither small nor homogeneous, so we tend to have problems ensuring that our citizens have thigh highest standard of living possible, because the government has decided that some things are more important than that, like security and infrastructure and so forth.

Good point, though according to definition a country's HDI is measured by life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living compared to countries worldwide. A country's size doesn't affect these things too much, perhaps resource wise though.

Japan has technology that we won't hope to see for years here in America, yet they're small. But also, Cambodia is small too and fairly under developed.

Perhaps if we didn't spend a crapload of money sticking our nose into other country's buisness, we'd have a higher standard of living. I know that sounded harsh, but we have homeless and starving people right here, I don't think we can afford to spend money on other countries right now. The US actually gives away extra food to other countries (not saying this is a bad thing, just inefficient) when we have to subsidize our farmers.

Just a thought!

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

because the government has decided that some things are more important than that, like [...] infrastructure and so forth.

Hahaha.

(For those of you who can't figure out why Dikiyoba is laughing, it's because the USA's infrastructure is generally old and badly maintained.)

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Artemis

The US actually gives away extra food to other countries (not saying this is a bad thing, just inefficient) when we have to subsidize our farmers.

We subsidize our farmers because we grow too much food, not too little.

Dikiyoba.

[Artemis~]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

We subsidize our farmers because we grow too much food, not too little.

Dikiyoba.

The point being, it could go to the hungry people here in the good 'ol US of A.

Oh goodness, American infrastructure. Lol xD

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Good point, though according to definition a country's HDI is measured by life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living compared to countries worldwide. A country's size doesn't affect these things too much, perhaps resource wise though.

Size does make things more difficult. If a country that has to educate 100,000 people at a cost of 100,000*X dollars per year, it can make do with a small bureaucracy and limited facilities, and so on and so forth, and manage to spend, say, .8 X directly on the children's educations. A country that educated 50,000,000 people per year with 50,000,000*X dollars needs a large bureaucracy, spread out over a vast area, that requires money and such to upkeep and run. With a larger prerequisite system, they might only spend .6*X dollars directly on a student's education, and so even though the "theoretical" amount of money is identical, the practical amount of money is much smaller.

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Japan has technology that we won't hope to see for years here in America, yet they're small. But also, Cambodia i small too and fairly under developed.

Yes, but Japanese technology poses no threat to us, so it is out of the purview of security threats, and thus irrelevant. Besides, do talking robots and such really elevate our standard of living?

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Perhaps if we didn't spend a crapload of money sticking our nose into other country's buisness, we'd have a higher standard of living.

So the US should simply sit back and watch Qaddafi slaughter civilians? We don't have a moral obligation to use our ability to crush his forces and utterly stop his repression? We posses the most expensive military in the world, and one of the most frequently cited justifications for this fact is that we use it to protect those that cannot justify such spending. If this is true, they why should we not "interfere" in other countries business by deposing brutal dictators and undemocratic regimes?

BTW, I do, in fact, support further massive military intervention in Libya. But for chrissakes, our President (both Obama and Bush) needs to learn that if you are going to prosecute wars, YOU HAVE TO RAISE TAXES. Also, it is possible to vastly reduce the DOD's budget and not impair their ability to fight the types of war we now face.

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

I know that sounded harsh, but we have homeless and starving people right here, I don't think we can afford to spend money on other countries right now. The US actually gives away extra food to other countries (not saying this is a bad thing, just inefficient) when we have to subsidize our farmers.

Here's the problem. While I can understand this kind of "set our own affairs in order first" type of thinking, the fact is, the percentage of people in the US in real, serious need of food, that would stave if they did not receive aid, is vastly in terms of number and percent than numbers in other countries. North Korea, for instance, is a country where millions would literally starve to death if we stopped sending them food aid. Farm subsidies < millions dead.

For proof of the fact that millions can die in a famine, just look at the Holodomor- a famine created in Ukraine by the orders of Josef Stalin. It killed more people than the entire Holocaust, a much more widely known genocide (12 million was the figure I read, versus 11 for the Holocaust), but instead of bothering with death camps and gas, Stalin simply cut off food. It's a terrible way to die, and mass casualties are very plausible.

EDIT:

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Dantius

because the government has decided that some things are more important than that, like [...] infrastructure and so forth.

Hahaha.

(For those of you who can't figure out why Dikiyoba is laughing, it's because the USA's infrastructure is generally old and badly maintained.)

Trust me, I know. Expressways built 50 years ago by Eisenhower weren't even supposed to last this long.

Luckily, Obama is putting more money into infrastructure and development under the ARRA, which is a solid move, IMO.

[ex post slarto]

From what I know of Switzerland, it may be xenophobic, but it is definitely NOT homogeneous.

[ex post slarto]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

if you are going to prosecute wars, YOU HAVE TO RAISE TAXES.

This isn't SimCity, you know. Somehow, I doubt it's really that simple.

[Rowen]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Imo, I'm american

Anyone from the Americas is an american.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Imo, I'm american

Anyone from the Americas is an american.

Yeah, well I'm a worldican. I'm from the world!

[Callie]

Farm subsidies are just an excuse to provide corporate welfare to huge agricultural companies like ConAgra. We would be fine without them.

 

Libya is about oil. The US only acts in its own interest.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Artemis

The point being, it could go to the hungry people here in the good 'ol US of A.

Dikiyoba sees. And how, exactly, do you propose to do that? Wave a magic wand?

[Artemis~]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

The point being, it could go to the hungry people here in the good 'ol US of A.

Dikiyoba sees. And how, exactly, do you propose to do that? Wave a magic wand?

Sounds good!

Nah, just kidding. We actually have a proven system to accomplish that.

1. Take food.
2. Find hungry people.
3. Give hungry people food.
4. Repeat.

Quote:

Here's the problem. While I can understand this kind of "set our own affairs in order first" type of thinking, the fact is, the percentage of people in the US in real, serious need of food, that would stave if they did not receive aid, is vastly in terms of number and percent than numbers in other countries. North Korea, for instance, is a country where millions would literally starve to death if we stopped sending them food aid. Farm subsidies < millions dead.

Can't argue with that one. I'm just too lazy to argue with the rest.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

I don't think the US has much on China anyways.

I'm rarely the first to defend the American lifestyle in these sorts of arguments, but China? Really? Can you qualify this statement in any way?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Nah, just kidding. We actually have a proven system to accomplish that.

1. Take food.
2. Find hungry people.
3. Give hungry people food.
4. Repeat.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

AHAHAHAHAHAH.

Sorry, sorry.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Okay, I can think up dozens of problems with that plan. THere's no "easy solution" for hunger in the US, much less the world. Here's just a few I can think of:

Define "hungry". Starving? Less than 1000 kcal/day? 1500? 2000? What about those likely to have food access cut off? What about the malnourished who have gained access to food? How would you find them? What if they aren't on the census? What if they're vagrants? What if they have access to food but are lying so that they can obtain food and instead spend their food money on drugs? What kind of food are you going to distribute? How will you distribute the food? How much will it cost? Which major foodgroups, and thus food industries, will be involved? Will the food be GE? What about organic? What state will produce it? Which companies will distribute it? Will a new government organization be formed? Who will run it? Where will its money come from?

This issue is way more complicated than you make it out to be.

[Artemis~]

As much as I would love to be the chick sitting behind her computer screen to come up with the solution to world hunger, I don't think that I'll try that one.

 

Quote:

Can you qualify this statement in any way?

 

They have hot guys and rice.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Size does make things more difficult. If a country that has to educate 100,000 people at a cost of 100,000*X dollars per year, it can make do with a small bureaucracy and limited facilities, and so on and so forth, and manage to spend, say, .8 X directly on the children's educations. A country that educated 50,000,000 people per year with 50,000,000*X dollars needs a large bureaucracy, spread out over a vast area, that requires money and such to upkeep and run. With a larger prerequisite system, they might only spend .6*X dollars directly on a student's education, and so even though the "theoretical" amount of money is identical, the practical amount of money is much smaller.

Given that American education is largely funded by revenue collected at the state or local level and run by local school boards, what exactly is all that alleged extra national-level bureaucracy doing?