American dominance

[amadeus]

DACHS GET IN HERE

Relative decline began in 1945.

 

[Tahuti]

Military dominance on that level should take a long time to weaken. It took two world wars to destroy the British Empire, and arguably it didn't even come out weaker from the first.

OTOH the USSR disappeared almost overnight after its economy and political system collapsed. But I don't think that such a quick collapse can happen to the USA.

Totally. Note that the USA already overtook the British Empire economically at the start of the 20th century, which should demolish any myths that economic prowess is the same thing as political power.

 

[NickyJ]

I think that U.S. power will continue to rise even though it may be perceived in many places to be declining. If it was in decline I think we would see a decrease in the numbers of people wishing to emigrate to the U.S.; instead there is an increase.

I think it's mostly just that the rest of the world is more declined than us. No, I'm not trying to say that in a USA#1 way. I mean, look at the rest of the world. It isn't exactly a whole lot better. Most of the immigrants are leaving the places of lower standing and moving to the U.S., which, while still dominant, is still declining.

DACHS GET IN HERE

Relative decline began in 1945.

Eh, I'm still not convinced. We were more dominant in the 1950s than in 1945.

 

[CaptainF]

The 1950s was our Golden Age. In the '60s, everything began to slide downhill. And it is kind of like the Roman Empire: They experienced economic and moral decline, down went the empire.

Moral decline...hah. That's rich.

 

[NickyJ]

Moral decline...hah. That's rich.

You don't consider the need Gladiatorial battles to the death as a form of entertainment to be moral decline?

 

[amadeus]

We were more dominant in the 1950s than in 1945.

Impossible. The Russians tightened their grip on Eastern Europe, plus Japan and West Germany were already in full swing growing their economies at rates of +10% per year.

 

[NickyJ]

Impossible. The Russians tightened their grip on Eastern Europe, plus Japan and West Germany were already in full swing growing their economies at rates of +10% per year.

Other countries growing doesn't take away from our own growing dominance that took place.

 

[amadeus]

Other countries growing doesn't take away from our own growing dominance that took place.

Their collective power (measure it however you want) grew faster than ours, thus reducing our share. Again, the question is about relative and not absolute power.

 

[CaptainF]

You don't consider the need Gladiatorial battles to the death as a form of entertainment to be moral decline?

No, rather that you believe that there has been a moral decline in the United States, which is quite ridiculous.

 

[Akkon888]

Their collective power (measure it however you want) grew faster than ours, thus reducing our share. Again, the question is about relative and not absolute power.

This.

The greatest technological disparity during American dominance was, IMO, after the space race. Americans had the only functional, human piloted object capable of going to the moon and back. Right afterwards, we had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET. We had the first personal PCs, first handheld calculators.

Now, American's do not maintain this disparity. Everyone has caught up, or at least has very nearly caught up, to the latest in hardware. What will happen in the next 50 years? Without thinking, I said that America's power (RELATIVE) would decline. Now, I see that this will not be so, or any declination will be so negligible as to be nonexistent. The reason? Every country, some time or another, will experience decline. America already had its decline for the most part; the EU will be next. Russia never really recovered from the end of the Cold War. Japan has stagnated and will begin to decline; so will South Korea.

Right now, China is experiencing the labor boom given to the USA in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. The main difference is that China has adopted a communist government, with a capitalist society. So far, it has been reasonably successful. Whether the government decides to force labor jobs on the Chinese people, that will determine the fluctuation of their global position.

India, IMO, has the greatest potential for growth. The Chinese harshly controlled their population growth; India has not done that whatsoever. More competition, means more Indians in more countries. More competition means more pressure, and pressure yields diamonds. I would not be surprised to see (important) novel Indian inventions created in the next 50 years. However, after their boom, they too will stagnate and decline; the service economy always dominating any industrial presence.

World nations will begin to stagnate and decline slowly over the next few decades. It's like a "last place wins" scenario. When China and India are wealthy and tired of working, African nations will be next. At end game, all nations will either obliterate each-other in World War 87, or all nations will peacefully advance in absolute tandem.

TL;DR version:

Every nation will stagnate and decline; thus American status will remain relatively equal.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Eh, I'm still not convinced. We were more dominant in the 1950s than in 1945.

Well, economically speaking, I do believe that the US has never been as strong as in 1945, when Europe and Japan were reduced to dust and the rest of the world was still undevelopped.

Politically speaking however, I would say the US has never been as strong as from 1989 to 2001.

 

[NiRv4n4]

Yeah, it really remains to be seen. Is it possible that anything big could happen between the big Asian nations, or in Africa/Middle East, which would keep them from pushing the USA's relative power down? We've all seen what civil unrest can lead to, and isn't it possible that the same thing as in the Arab Spring could happen in China or Russia in 5 years? Or even to America?

 

[Dachs]

DACHS GET IN HERE

Relative decline began in 1945.

pretty much, maybe a few years later because it took everybody quite awhile to recuperate plus we had the nuclear monopoly

 

[jtb1127]

Damn, I was just about to say the same thing.

 

[red_elk]

IIRC, the USA had about half of the world's GDP in 1945.
The fraction has been reducing since then, of course.

 

[Ergo Sum]

IIRC, the USA had about half of the world's GDP in 1945.
The fraction has been reducing since then, of course.

Cursory google search says it couldn't have been more than ~35%. What data there was suggest it's been a pretty constant share of GDP over time, between 20 and 25%, with some discrepancies based on PPP vs. nominal, etc. etc.

 

[red_elk]

Cursory google search says it couldn't have been more than ~35%. What data there was suggest it's been a pretty constant share of GDP over time, between 20 and 25%, with some discrepancies based on PPP vs. nominal, etc. etc.

What I was able to find quickly - just first 3 links:
http://hir.harvard.edu/energy/us-economic-power
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-07/19/content_12933160.htm
http://theamericanscene.com/2008/05/07/a-post-american-world

Estimates are 46%, ~50% and 50% (I think it's nominal, not PPP)
And also 75% of world's gold reserve.
Numbers are approximate, but anyway both of them are certainly lower now.
Just because Europe, USSR and Japan were devastated after WW2 and U.S. was virtually unharmed.

 

[Hygro]

The 1950s was our Golden Age. In the '60s, everything began to slide downhill. And it is kind of like the Roman Empire: They experienced economic and moral decline, down went the empire.

We experienced economic decline but morally our country has been slowly improving.

What happened to Rome was not that they suffered some kind of moral decline and then they lost their way, it's that they suffered a lack of unity as they had no real enemies to unite such a massive and disparate empire and the politics turned ineffective at keeping together the country.

 

[Dachs]

We experienced economic decline but morally our country has been slowly improving.

What happened to Rome was not that they suffered some kind of moral decline and then they lost their way, it's that they suffered a lack of unity as they had no real enemies to unite such a massive and disparate empire and the politics turned ineffective at keeping together the country.

yes and no

Rome basically suffered a serious crisis of elite management; the WRE's economy was stronger than it had been in previous centuries and its military was, as you point out, faced with no real enemies (it was absolutely not militarily defeated by the "barbarians")

it was just that the WRE ran into a run of crap emperors who couldn't stop civil wars, and the emperors didn't get better until the empire was on the ropes

but yeah nickyj is wrong with his moral decline nonsense

 

[strijder20]

We experienced economic decline but morally our country has been slowly improving.

What happened to Rome was not that they suffered some kind of moral decline and then they lost their way, it's that they suffered a lack of unity as they had no real enemies to unite such a massive and disparate empire and the politics turned ineffective at keeping together the country.

As far as I know, it was debt which really sunk the empire.
The Roman emperors had to pay everything they had to the army to keep it loyal, and when their money was depleted they were deposed and a new emperor (with money) was assigned. Until his money was gone too.