Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[Murky]

The greatness of a country could be measured in many ways. I think prefer the hotness of its women.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So that would be Spain (Disclaimer, never been to Latin American Countries)

Whodda thunk!

 

[Kozmos]

Gotta love it when people question everything to the n-th degree. What is porn anyway? What is decline anyway? What is freedom anyway?

 

[Crezth]

Well, part of the reason it serves to be specific here is that I think you can pick and choose literally anything to refer to as "in decline" and find someone who agrees with you. "Our nation is in decline." "Cable TV is in decline." "The internet is in decline." Etc.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Gotta love it when people question everything to the n-th degree. What is porn anyway? What is decline anyway? What is freedom anyway?

What is everything?

 

[Borachio]

What is what?

As the old hermit of Prague, who knew neither pen nor ink, so wittily said: "That that is, is. For what is that but that, and is but is?"

 

[classical_hero]

I believe that America is in decline, but right now it is a slow and almost indecipherable decline, which is fooling some people into thinking that their is no decline.

 

[kochman]

Here's another article from Spiegel Online.
It's depression inducing but it rings true so far as I can tell.
What do you think? Is America in a state of decline?

Absolutely in decline, for over a decade...
But, we can turn it around. This is normal... it can't always be the roaring 20s or 80s... For Speigel's guy to act like this is something huge just means they didn't have much else to write about and America is always an easy target.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not sure. I'd tend to think that raw GDP power is all that really counts. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Incidentally, I think China's domestic political situation is interesting for exactly the reason that economic and political power are virtually indistinguishable. By liberalizing the market system, I think China must inevitably be at least diffusing the political power into the growing middle class, to an extent. If not leading directly to democracy immediately.

If raw GDP counted for as much as you give it credit, then both the US and Germany would have eclipsed the UK in global stature last century. Germany never did, though they tried through force, but the US did. Even then, the US's rise was less about raw economic power as it was about advantageous positioning that kept the damage of WWII from our shores. All the other big players got knocked down to rubble except the US.

From their, we solidified our position with generous loans, grants and new alliances.

My point is though that raw GNP is not itself the determining factor of dominance. It can make a country great (and let's not forget that for almost all of history, China was the 'greatest' country with the biggest GNP - but it never dominated the world the way European countries did) but will not make other countries bend to it's will.

Of course, these days, international trade links do give far more weight to raw GNP than it did in the past. But that is still not going to magically make hostile countries become allies (and many countries in it's neighborhood are hostile to China) or lend it weight in international politics.

Further, the rest of the world is shifting toward democracy and personal liberties. No one is really looking to China for a political system to adopt for themselves. That counts for a lot too.

As for your last paragraph, I think it just as likely that the growing clout of the middle class will cause many headaches and strains for the Chinese political system as it will cause the system to open up voluntarily without massive unrest.

IMHO, Americans care less about being world leaders anymore.

There are about a 50 million USA#1! posters who would differ with you.

Seriously though, our standing in the world is still very much a big deal to Americans and I put almost no belief in an outlook that essentially says "People are different now" or whatever. It is very close to the 'kids don't have morals these days blah blah blah' kind of arguments older people love to make that are full of fallacies.

The "Greatest Generation" who concerned themselves with such things are gone now. The Cold War is over. NATO is considered irrelavant by many.

NATO irrelevant? Really? I think Russia would argue with this assertion, as would many Europeans, as would all of the Middle Eastern states that have asked or counted on NATO intervention.

Relatively few care about the space program anymore. The Large Hadron Collider was eventually built in Europe because the US Congress lost interest and voted against building one here.

I agree with this, but I think this is a temporary set of affairs and won't last long. Look at everything that is going on in the private space sphere and tell me seriously that this won't generate excitement as it all unfurls and also won't cause the US to become an even bigger player in space and research as commercial firms start to make a lot of money through new commercial enterprises in space.

As for Communist China, while it's true that their economy might soon overtake the US, and they may become the dominant regional military power, is there any real belief that they might become true world leaders?

I don't think anyone who thinks about everything that goes into being 'world leaders' really thinks that. It's one thing to fret over the size of an economy, it's quite another to successfully argue that big economy = 'world leader'.

Perhaps we should define leadership. For a generation or so, the US looked beyond it's own narrow domestic interests and helped around the world - WW II, CARE, the Marshall Plan, the UN, USAID. It recognized the greater good. And for a time it had vision - it cured diseases, explored the ocean depths, sent men to the moon.

Forinstance, America/Britain led in Dessert Storm to redress a balance - defeat an occupation (and yes, protect an energy source). Would anyone actually follow China in such a war of liberation? Would China actually engage itself in a true liberation (Tibet?). Perhaps I'm just lacking imagination, but it seems to me China doesn't yet have that vision - it would have to grow a bit to be respected and followed and trusted as a world leader.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Chinese leadership is really only interested in advancing China at any cost, whether that cost is imposed on personal liberties, the environment or international relations.

For better or ill, the US still promotes 'good' things like democracy, liberties and economic growth throughout the whole world. More importantly, as you hinted at, we have the arsenal to stop things like genocide and it is the US that the world often turns to in these situations.

I wouldn't say having a large economy is the biggest factor in international relations, I'd say alliances, military power and reach are much more important. America has a massive network of allies, bases, and friendly nations across the globe. You can probably count China's "allies" on one hand.

Yes, yes and yes. I am really struggling to comprehend how big economy = #1! in the world. There is so much more to it than that. Hell, there is even more to it than just military might, but that and the size of the economy seems to be what people fixate on.

Well, so does Russia, but I don't see many predicting anything about Russia becoming the next hegemonic power. The most that they're doing right now is carving their own little sphere of influence with neighboring states.

It's worse than that. Russia is trying to re-carve the sphere of influence that they lost, they aren't even trying to really expance their influence beyond what they lost. They are too weak and inept to do so.

China can wield their powers and be a SC obstacle if they want, but that's not going to net them any more allies then they already have.

In fact, the way they are an obstruction in the Security Council is something that other nations dislike them over; it hurts them internationally.

And there are so many other international institutions like the World Bank, WTO, etc. that China either just joined, hasn't joined yet or has little or no pull within. It's more than just alliances that makes the US great. We largely (with help from our allies) set up the very institutions that are stitching together all of the countries of the world together in so many different spheres. This alone means that whether or not China replaces us as #1!, they will be replacing us in a system that we created, a system set up in part because it benefits our interest.

That's the real greatness of USA#1!. When all the other #1's collapsed or lost stature, they usually lost all of the power structures they had in place and often had very resentful colonies that weren't going to contribute much to the former #1. When we get replaced as #1, those power structures and deep ties to other countries won't be going away.

I'm no economist, not even close, but from what I understand China's going through a massive bubble right now (just look at all the ghost towns they've built). And if I know bubbles correctly, it's going to pop, and it's not going to be pretty.

China's economy will grow, but its not going to gain "pre-eminence" over the U.S. anytime soon. They're going to be a regional power for a long time in the near future

Their economy is having all kinds of problems in spite of their massive growth, but people here either don't know this or heavily discount this fact.

Also, it is much easier to get 8% growth per year from a small economy and much more difficult to get 8% or even 3% from a rich, fully developed one. China simply cannot continue growing this fast forever and they are very likely to suffer major economic and social setbacks in the near term as any mismanagement of an economy is greatly magnified by screaming GNP growth.

You must not have many Republican friends.

Almost all of my real life friends are Republicans, no joke. I live in the middle of nowhere, Missouri.

More to the point, not everyone votes, and more than that not everyone votes for a reason, even I confess that on occasions when I don't know anything about the candidate I vote based on party affiliation. "Oh he's on Working Families ticket? Yeah must be decent enough."

To give me credit for something like unemployment dropping/increasing is I think giving too much importance the the voter and their influence on the system.

I'm not going to suggest that the socio-economic elite control everything, I'm merely going to say that the socio-economic elite control everything.

My point was that despite an individual voters motives, they still, on average over time, have elected leaders that have done a fantastic job over the long haul.

It's easy to say that we're headed in the wrong direction now, but do not forget that we have been on an upward trajectory from being a poor, backward country since our founding until today. We are #1! because our system works and the voters do get some credit for that.

All this talk about economy and military might. The greatness of the country is determined by it's creaminess. And only Denmark comes close to the Netherlands in that regard.

Neither of those countries have Wisconsin, so ther.

According to this, the US eclipsed the UK in about 1870, in GDP terms.

Now what about military power?

How would you measure this? The British maintained naval supremacy till after WW1 didn't they? But does this mean much?

Sorry Borachio, when I first commented on this, the 2nd and 3rd sentences weren't in this post and I missed them.

But to answer you now, the US didn't eclipse the UK politically or militarily until WWII. We didn't replace them as top dog till WWII either. Both goes to show that the size of an economy does not ensure #1 placement in global politics.

 

[Borachio]

If raw GDP counted for as much as you give it credit, then both the US and Germany would have eclipsed the UK in global stature last century. Germany never did, though they tried through force, but the US did. Even then, the US's rise was less about raw economic power as it was about advantageous positioning that kept the damage of WWII from our shores. All the other big players got knocked down to rubble except the US.
My point is though that raw GNP is not itself the determining factor of dominance. It can make a country great (and let's not forget that for almost all of history, China was the 'greatest' country with the biggest GNP - but it never dominated the world the way European countries did) but will not make other countries bend to it's will.

But to answer you now, the US didn't eclipse the UK politically or militarily until WWII. We didn't replace them as top dog till WWII either. Both goes to show that the size of an economy does not ensure #1 placement in global politics.

I don't agree. Of course it's not just a simple GDP means global power. There are other factors at work too. It's just that if you're wealthy you do have power. Your political culture and history may influence how you exercise that power.

China could have dominated the globe centuries ago. IIRC a fleet did set sail with this sort of intention (damn me when was it?), and turned back at a certain point for some internal political reason. And then never bothered to look outwards again.

Oh and I think the UK was largely a spent force after WW1.

And economically Germany was a substantial rival to the UK before WW1 despite not having anywhere near the size of empire.

After WW2 it very soon eclipsed the UK, but for political and historical reasons chose not to exercise its power militarily. But it is, and has been for a long time, the economic (and therefore political) motor of Europe.

So, anyway, 1870 marks the point the US eclipsed the UK economically. ~1930 marks the point where the US eclipsed the UK militarily, especially as a naval force. So you might say there was a 60 year lag.

Given that such things gallop away, it might be possible to conclude that China could eclipse the US as a global military player in as little as 20 years, if, and it's a big if, it chooses to do so. I don't see why they wouldn't want to. It's served the US really very well.

 

[kochman]

UK was not reduced to rubble in WW2.

In fact, acting as the off shore aircraft carrier for the allied armies was a great boon to their economy...
There was substantial damage in the early stages while the Battle of Britain was being waged, of course... but after that, not nearly as bad.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't agree. Of course it's not just a simple GDP means global power. There are other factors at work too. It's just that if you're wealthy you do have power. Your political culture and history may influence how you exercise that power.

If you have the wealth, you don't necessarily have the power. What about the global institutions and alliances? What about global public image? You can't just buy those things, and it's very hard to overturn the current order of nations and power structure without a big war.

China could have dominated the globe centuries ago. IIRC a fleet did set sail with this sort of intention (damn me when was it?), and turned back at a certain point for some internal political reason. And then never bothered to look outwards again.

Exactly! They could have, but didn't! Their culture was inward looking and it still very much is. The US was founded and soon took to this notion of 'manifest destiny' and we still ascribe to a very outward looking philosophy. Even during our isolationist days, we were still building commercial ties to the rest of the world like crazy which helped both our economy grow and increased our stature in the world.

(The burning of their fleets was such a stupid thing to do btw, the Emperor felt threatened by his eunich-admiral that he had sent out when he became really succesful in his voyages)

Oh and I think the UK was largely a spent force after WW1.

And economically Germany was a substantial rival to the UK before WW1 despite not having anywhere near the size of empire.

They were a substantial rival due to their military threat, but they never came close to overthrowing the UK as global superpower. Well, they did, but that was only because of wars and I find US/China wars very unlikely.

So, anyway, 1870 marks the point the US eclipsed the UK economically. ~1930 marks the point where the US eclipsed the UK militarily, especially as a naval force. So you might say there was a 60 year lag.

Given that such things gallop away, it might be possible to conclude that China could eclipse the US as a global military player in as little as 20 years, if, and it's a big if, it chooses to do so. I don't see why they wouldn't want to. It's served the US really very well.

How does China eclipse US military power anytime soon if:
*They lack the technology we have (which will take more money to get than just building more stuff)
*They lack the experience of modern operations
*Our military budget is much bigger and will continue to be much bigger
*They lack international bases
*They lack the international goodwill that makes the US global police at times and allows us to place those bases in the first place

?

 

[sophie]

I'm pretty sure China's growth is still slowing down, especially with a reduced demand across the world for their goods (and a lack of demand on the homefront to buy things). China's demographics are not favorable to the system they're trying to set up, and any sort of military comparable to the U.S. is laughable even in the near future.

China might take the slot as the world biggest economy, but that's it, nothing else points to China becoming anything more than the regional power they are for quite some time.

A lot of China's rapid growth has to do with the concept of convergence. It's easier for China to grow when their growth goes from basically no infrastructure to the kind of infrastructure Western nation-states already have in place. China grows rapidly because they're piggy-backing on developments the US and Europe came up with. Expect that rapid growth to level off as they get this sort of infrastructure in place. At the end of the day the US is still leading the charge on innovation and research and development, particularly in the technological world. China may take the preeminent position in production and raw materials, (particularly Rare Earth Elements), but they aren't going to supplant the US, even in economic importance for some time to come. It'll be especially interesting to see what happens to China in the next decade or so as that construction bubble of theirs pops and European and American firms begin shifting their production to other sources of cheaper labor such as Vietnam.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And let's not forget that Chinese students come here to get cutting edge educations, not the other way around.

Also, much of their economic prowess (to use the Rare Earth production as an example) is underwritten by generous and abusive government subsidies meant to undercut foreign competition. Not only is this not viable long-term, in the short-term it pisses everyone off and makes it that much less likely for them to develop deep political or even economic ties.

 

[ace99]

Also I suspect that China is undergoing some/all of the social conflict that characterized industrialization in the West, we don't often hear about it but there's plenty of worker unrest, strikes, riots, disturbances that happen,

 

[Borachio]

USA#1 it is then. All the way.

 

[sophie]

Also I suspect that China is undergoing some/all of the social conflict that characterized industrialization in the West, we don't often hear about it but there's plenty of worker unrest, strikes, riots, disturbances that happen,

This also plays into it. My understanding is that it is for this reason, generally speaking, that most firms with an interest in maintaining cheap manufacturing jobs overseas are shifting to regions more akin to the China of 20 years ago (or the Japan and Korea in the decades prior to the ascension of China), namely Vietnam and Indonesia.

However firms for the most part have found it on the whole cheaper (not to mention better from a PR perspective) to bite the bullet and employ American workers in already existent factories in the US, rather than having to build infrastructure, hire and train workers (including the hiring of skilled, [generally American], bilingual support staff), and then ship the products back to the US for finishing.

 

[LamaGT]

China's bubble will pop when producing stuff there will be not as profitable. If you add massive unemployment to the problems China already has, you have the perfect recipe of a rebellion. China is really built upon very fragile foundations, and I don't think they will rival the USA any time soon, especially not militarily.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

China's bubble will pop when producing stuff there will be not as profitable. If you add massive unemployment to the problems China already has, you have the perfect recipe of a rebellion. China is really built upon very fragile foundations, and I don't think they will rival the USA any time soon, especially not militarily.

It will be interesting to see if China can reform itself and avoid major upheaval before it's too late. I don't put it past them, but presently they seem set on following the same course they are on and aren't interested in political or even economic reform that might threaten one-party rule.

USA#1 it is then. All the way.

Well, I don't even think we will be #1 for another century. I do think we will probably be eclipsed in time and probably by China.

I just think that predictions of this happening soon based on China's economic growth are a bit off and pessimistic.

Honest question: Do we 'America defenders' come across as jerks, stupid, unrealistic or overly-optimistic? I'm genuinely curious, I don't want to come across in any of those ways.

Also I suspect that China is undergoing some/all of the social conflict that characterized industrialization in the West, we don't often hear about it but there's plenty of worker unrest, strikes, riots, disturbances that happen,

From things I've read in articles online, China has hundreds of strikes and protests every day but news doesn't get out because of their tight cencorship. China's populace is very unhappy from what I can tell and want change that the government will never give them.

As someone stated, if you add unemployment into the mix and things will get very dicey.

 

[Cutlass]

A lot of China's rapid growth has to do with the concept of convergence. It's easier for China to grow when their growth goes from basically no infrastructure to the kind of infrastructure Western nation-states already have in place. China grows rapidly because they're piggy-backing on developments the US and Europe came up with. Expect that rapid growth to level off as they get this sort of infrastructure in place. At the end of the day the US is still leading the charge on innovation and research and development, particularly in the technological world. China may take the preeminent position in production and raw materials, (particularly Rare Earth Elements), but they aren't going to supplant the US, even in economic importance for some time to come. It'll be especially interesting to see what happens to China in the next decade or so as that construction bubble of theirs pops and European and American firms begin shifting their production to other sources of cheaper labor such as Vietnam.

Don't forget that China also piggybacked US and Western consumption spending. Whatever else may be true, they would not have developed as they had had they not had foreign customers with deep pockets to finance it.