The end of the American Century, 25 years early

[firebug]

An interesting article from slate describing the collapse of the American Empire and how it is happening faster than anyone expected.

The author also describes 4 independent scenarios of what it might look like.
Economic Decline
Oil Shock
Military Misadventure
WWIII (Without a single human casualty).



While my thoughts are not as dire as the authors, it would seem that the US has significant structural obstacles in its path and is lacking the political will to deal with them effectively.


[Edit - Another NYT opinion piece imagining what the Chinese embassy cables might look like if wikileaks were to release them. Sheds a lot of insight on the structural issues Americans are avoiding]

[Cowperson]

And the counter-argument from David Brooks in the New York Times . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06brooks.html

A few excerpts:

Over the next 40 years, demographers estimate that the U.S. population will surge by an additional 100 million people, to 400 million over all. The population will be enterprising and relatively young. In 2050, only a quarter will be over 60, compared with 31 percent in China and 41 percent in Japan.

And

The American fertility rate is 50 percent higher than Russia, Germany or Japan, and much higher than China. Americans born between 1968 and 1979 are more family-oriented than the boomers before them, and are having larger families.

And

In addition, the U.S. remains a magnet for immigrants. Global attitudes about immigration are diverging, and the U.S. is among the best at assimilating them (while China is exceptionally poor). As a result, half the world’s skilled immigrants come to the U.S. As Kotkin notes, between 1990 and 2005, immigrants started a quarter of the new venture-backed public companies.

And

The United States already measures at the top or close to the top of nearly every global measure of economic competitiveness. A comprehensive 2008 Rand Corporation study found that the U.S. leads the world in scientific and technological development. The U.S. now accounts for a third of the world’s research-and-development spending. Partly as a result, the average American worker is nearly 10 times more productive than the average Chinese worker, a gap that will close but not go away in our lifetimes.

I remember all "The Death Of The American Empire" commentaries of the late 1980's and early 1990's as well. Very convincing at the time. Didn't turn out that way.

Just saying.

Cowperson

[TylerSVT]

They will always be top.

China is only prosperous because they valuate their dollar lower than it is to keep their cheap exports high and rake in money easily. If they try and transition to a white collar society they will see things falter pretty heavily as their exports dwindle and their imports continue to grow.

[mac_82]

The WW3 scenario was particularly interesting.

[HPLovecraft]

Read Nial Ferguson's "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" for another interesting take.

[CaptainCrunch]

While we talk about America's massive debt load, and high unemployment rates I don't think we'll ever see a true shrinkage of American Military and Poilitical power on the world stage.

A lot of the world's economy does depend on trade with America who run a massive trade deficit.

If they ever decided to address that the ripples on the world wide economy would be disasterous. So while China can claim to own a majority of America's debt for example, what China can't afford is a trade war with the U.S. The old saying is that China needs America to buy its products more then America needs to buy thier products.

If America ever decided to isolate itself and focus on its own internal issues the world would suffer.

Militarily America still leads the way, and invests a huge amount of their economy in military applications.

Naval wise the American's not only won the game, but the game is closed

Same with their air force and naval aviation.

In terms of boots on the ground, America really effectively learned a lot of lessons in vietnam and I believe that they're learning valuable lessons in Afghanistan and in Iran, I don't think that there's a military in the world that can kill as efficiently and quickly as the Americans.

Personally, I would prefer that America remains a world power or even the world power, because a world with China and some of the Eurasiac states in control of the world economy is frightening.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by TylerSVT

They will always be top.

China is only prosperous because they valuate their dollar lower than it is to keep their cheap exports high and rake in money easily. If they try and transition to a white collar society they will see things falter pretty heavily as their exports dwindle and their imports continue to grow.

No empire has ever held for more than a century. Out of all of them, I doubt the USA has the biggest dominance out of all of them.

China (and India) aren't called a sleeping tiger for no reason, and when you look around at where production is happening, more and more of it is going go China and India at a faster and faster pace. Large population, hard working attitude, and yes top schools with top students coming out of them as well. China has gone through industrialization to grow their economy, just like the USA did to become prosperous, but there is design going on there as well. Its also hard to ignore China strategically positioning themselves to have the resources to take them into the next century. Of coarse, low labour costs sure helps when you can pay a guy 1/10 to do the same job in Bangalore as someone in NY/California.

The scariest thing for the USA has to be, are the Asians in the USA who are producing value for America, interested in going home? I'm not an expert nor am I sourcing this, but given the large portion of Asians in the upper class, if they went home, couldn't the USA find themselves in somewhat of a "brain drain" ?

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

The scariest thing for the USA has to be, are the Asians in the USA who are producing value for America, interested in going home? I'm not an expert nor am I sourcing this, but given the large portion of Asians in the upper class, if they went home, couldn't the USA find themselves in somewhat of a "brain drain" ?

That is most definitely happening, though not at a large rate just yet. I know a pretty large number of foreign workers and, although most of them seem content here, an increasingly large amount are returning home. Especially to places like Shanghai.

[octothorp]

Most of the scenarios depend on someone behaving in an irrational way. For example, if China and the US are at a point of cyberwar standoff, what benefit is there for China to launch an attack that would escalate into full war? There's an equal chance that the US would defeat China in such a war, and China would lose much of the global dominance that they're currently acquiring. To me, it's no different than the US vs. USSR nuclear scenarios that never came to be. Similarly, a scenario where the Taliban suddenly conducts surprisingly organized and sophisticated attacks while the US conducts widespread bombings out of some sense of revenge is equally implausible.

[CaptainCrunch]

While I think Militarily the American's in terms of technology, training and experience would beat the Chinese depending on where and how the war starts.

I think the Chinese in terms of population and culture would be impossible to beat unless you were willing to nuke every square inch of China, and with the number of Chinese nationals living in the U.S. in Canada you'd be forced to go back to a internment program.

Plus, they're all ninja's.

[TylerSVT]

We just need MNC's to keep owning the impovrished....


What happens when China becomes the world leader and their population decides it wants more freedoms and the government is overthrown? No Communist country can stay at the top for long...

Their model is flawed because they take out the human aspect.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I found this part of the article rather interesting:

"In a dark, dystopian version of our global future, a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral forces like NATO, and an international financial elite could conceivably forge a single, possibly unstable, supra-national nexus that would make it no longer meaningful to speak of national empires at all. While denationalized corporations and multinational elites would assumedly rule such a world from secure urban enclaves, the multitudes would be relegated to urban and rural wastelands."

[amorak]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I found this part of the article rather interesting:

"In a dark, dystopian version of our global future, a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral forces like NATO, and an international financial elite could conceivably forge a single, possibly unstable, supra-national nexus that would make it no longer meaningful to speak of national empires at all. While denationalized corporations and multinational elites would assumedly rule such a world from secure urban enclaves, the multitudes would be relegated to urban and rural wastelands."

Why am I not suprised.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I found this part of the article rather interesting:

"In a dark, dystopian version of our global future, a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral forces like NATO, and an international financial elite could conceivably forge a single, possibly unstable, supra-national nexus that would make it no longer meaningful to speak of national empires at all. While denationalized corporations and multinational elites would assumedly rule such a world from secure urban enclaves, the multitudes would be relegated to urban and rural wastelands."

Somebody read Oryx and Crake!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Somebody read Oryx and Crake!

Or Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars.

Cowperson

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

No empire has ever held for more than a century. Out of all of them, I doubt the USA has the biggest dominance out of all of them.

No world power, be it anything back to the ancient Egyptians, has ever held a grip like the United States. Economically, militarily, culturally, their dominance is unprecedented.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

No empire has ever held for more than a century.

This seems to me to be objectively false. The Roman Empire had certainly begun when Augustus ascended in 27 BC. It was certainly still around during the reign of Hadrian, when he built a wall in Britain marking its northmost extent. Hadrian died in 138 AD, or 165 years later. A strong case can be made for times before and after this as well, but even this period is over a century, and includes nearly uninterupted expansion and dominance.

[Magnum PEI]

Yes things change- 500 years ago the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful nation on earth, but I think the US will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future. America's GDP is larger than Japan, China and Germany combined. China would have to keep up an 8% growth rate to surpass America in 2025, which is unlikely.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

No world power, be it anything back to the ancient Egyptians, has ever held a grip like the United States. Economically, militarily, culturally, their dominance is unprecedented.

I really don't think the USA holds a economic dominance over the rest of the world. They are one of the biggest and influential, but not an overpowering grip. You certainly can't discount the amount of potential in China/India has and where the by-product of improved education the previous decade will take them in the following decade. While we did have this impeding doom in the 1980's, China has really upped their social infrastructure the past decade (India is still a bit farther behind).

Military... I don't know why thats being brought up so much. Historically used as a sign of strength, but its not like we're going into a nuclear war with China here. That sort of thinking seems a little... arcane and old to me.

Culturally... I don't know why that matters.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I really don't think the USA holds a economic dominance over the rest of the world. They are one of the biggest and influential, but not an overpowering grip. You certainly can't discount the amount of potential in China/India has and where the by-product of improved education the previous decade will take them in the following decade. While we did have this impeding doom in the 1980's, China has really upped their social infrastructure the past decade (India is still a bit farther behind).

I would agree with this, but America still have a pretty powerful level in terms of trade. When you run significant trade deficits with countries like China, it can be used for a similar type of leverage to China owning U.S. debt.

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Military... I don't know why thats being brought up so much. Historically used as a sign of strength, but its not like we're going into a nuclear war with China here. That sort of thinking seems a little... arcane and old to me.

When you control the sea for example its something that does have to be taken into account. China is not in a terrific strategic situation based on both historic enemies and their lack of ability to project power.

Military will always need to be taken into account because we do live in a violent nasty war.

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Culturally... I don't know why that matters.

Frankly it does matter because it dictates how China interacts and negotiates with other countries.