So how Long will This last: How would you define the US Global Political and Economic Position Today and Moving into the Next Half Century?

[kwsaw63]

Well, their political position is still firmly on top, with some cracks starting to show.

Economically, still on top, but fading a little faster than their political standpoint.

I would say the next half century is a little far fetched, time wise.

I would think 30 to 40 years at best. Maybe much less. Then it's China's turn. Then India.

...not so sure about India. It has a lot of potential but not the political systems to fully exploit and benefit from that potential.

[shlomo]

I care about Canada! I go up around Winnipeg fishing every couple years with some law enforcement friends. Drink your beer, whiskey and chase your beavers! Maybe if we gave you Minnesota it would help boost your politics a little (or sink it).

No thanks, we have enough cold, miserable places here already. How about Arizona? I'd like that.

[Paul3]

I think we will look back and realise that the USA has reached its peak and is at a cross roads. Today the USA is unchallenged as the only super power in the world. However, this supremacy is a result of having the largest economy in the world, which has enabled it to fund a strong military with a large technological advantage. This principal of strong economy = strong military = superpower is one that has been proven time and time again throughout history (Look at the Roman Empire, British Empire, etc.)

So if we use this principal of strong economy = strong military = superpower to guide us, I think the USA will remain as a superpower for the next decade or so. However, China is rapidly closing the gap economically and will have essentially caught up with the USA by 2020. It will take China some time to translate it's economic power into military power but it should be reasonable for it to equal the USA militarily by 2030.

While I don't completely disagree I would add one crucial piece to your formula if not THE key piece. The people. For any nation to excel as a super power, powerful military or economic force it must have a populace that continues to grow, maintains a drive to become better through education, imagination and some sense of a common goal. These are also the things that I feel are starting to level off to some extent here in the U.S. IMHO we are our own worst enemy and our "status" is ours to lose, more so than for China, India or the EU to take.

Cheers

[kwsaw63]

While I don't completely disagree I would add one crucial piece to your formula if not THE key piece. The people. For any nation to excel as a super power, powerful military or economic force it must have a populace that continues to grow, maintains a drive to become better through education, imagination and some sense of a common goal. These are also the things that I feel are starting to level off to some extent here in the U.S. IMHO we are our own worst enemy and our "status" is ours to lose, more so than for China, India or the EU to take.

Cheers

I was trying to be succinct and not delve into too much detail but I agree people are important. However they are just one factor in the make up of a strong economy. Look at China and India - similar size populations, similar education standards, and similar level of resources. Yet China is so far ahead of India. Why? That's a subject that deserves a thread of it's own.

[Cmontoya79]

Capitalism thrived and created the greatest country on the backs of slave labor and continues to do so. Agreed that the users outnumber the producers. A balance of economic models is what would work, a hybrid super social/capitalism.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ATGroom]

I visit both the US and China every couple of years. When I'm in the US things seem more or less the same as they always were, the odd new building, a bit of gentrification here and there, but everything is more or less recognisable. Whenever I get to China things are totally changed; I'm landing in new airports, riding on train lines that weren't even conceived a few years prior, the skylines have changed dramatically, and entire neighbourhoods have been torn down and rebuilt.

The US will keep its current level of affluence, but it will be totally eclipsed by that of China. You just can't argue with the productive power of a billion pairs of hands.

[AlohaStyle]

Okay guys, 44 more posts to go... just don't even read the posts until we hit 150, then have at it! lol

[dangolf18]

I personally think China and other emerging economies will continue to grow at much higher rates for the next 20-30 years. The only way that the US can keep up is that we invest more in infrastructur as well as invest more into education/schools. The US needs to produce more actual goods instead of relying on countries with cheap labor to make all our goods. We will only have the same economic influence as we do today if we can grow jobs at home and invest in our childrens' education. It's a tough question, one that I can't speculate on in less than 30 words (I mean there are academics that devote their whole lives to this sort of question).

[Maplepie]

Fiat income, one party electoral system, freedom of speech watched over by rulings party, legal bribes by corporations or enough collective public funds:

All examples of things America stood for that's been trampled on in the past few decades. Ironically by the higher class Americans. I don't care which two parties you belong to, they mean the same thing and they essentially are. A weird dictatorship that corrupts itself to give freedom. A freedom it can't find a way to [methodically] take away.

Strangely enough, they've been kept afloat by something these past years. But that something will deflate one day. Through that degradation, we'll see the rise of a new nation. Let's just hope it's not born out of the flames that will take too many lives.

Economic turmoil would lead to international help. And when does America ask? Just smash and grab because you can! Huh? What'd I say about lives again?

Sent from my BlackBerry Q10 using Tapatalk for Android.

[Tino]

I visit both the US and China every couple of years. When I'm in the US things seem more or less the same as they always were, the odd new building, a bit of gentrification here and there, but everything is more or less recognisable. Whenever I get to China things are totally changed; I'm landing in new airports, riding on train lines that weren't even conceived a few years prior, the skylines have changed dramatically, and entire neighbourhoods have been torn down and rebuilt.

The US will keep its current level of affluence, but it will be totally eclipsed by that of China. You just can't argue with the productive power of a billion pairs of hands.

Here's the Shanghai skyline changes, 1990 to 2010

[poisonowns]

I'll keep my opinion on this short and sweet.

We saw the impact (if you haven't seen it, look at the formal documentation) that during the recession in the US, the economic growth around the world and across the board slowed, with perhaps the exception of China. Since the topic is the US, I'm not going to get in to a long discussion about my thoughts on China's economy or what I believe is coming.

Because of the countless variables, it's impossible to tell exactly how much of an impact the US economy may have on other interdependent economies, but there are scales and formulas in place to hypothesize things such as real GDP effect, etc. Countries that don't directly trade so much with the US are effected by the impact that their trade partners experience in trading with the US. For many economies, the US is their first trading partner. These are obviously the countries that are most impacted based on how much money we spend when the economy is good. The more developed economies around the globe (Canada for example) are also able to absorb changes in the economy faster than smaller emerging economies such as Mexico or S Korea.

The real question that seems to have come up in this thread is basically "Is America slipping/declining in global influence?"

No and yes. America has less global influence than they did years ago, but this can really be seen as an awesome thing. This means that other economies are growing and global poverty is decreasing.

This can also be seen as a bad thing. Would we rather have the US economy playing a larger role in how other economies perform, or would we rather other economies be more influenced by events such as the Russia/Ukraine conflict or issues between countries in the Middle East?

[tippexx]

China and India have risen up the charts without doubt, but the rises haven't been solely 'off their own backs'. Corporates (Financial and Industrial) in America and Europe have assisted and enabled China's growth, and made huge profits for themselves at the expense of Western manufacturing, Western jobs and without any regard to the social and political impact of their business decisions.

A man with a job and without fear of loosing his job can foresee and confidently plan his future. He can also afford to be generous and not begrudge 'social' help to the less advantaged. Once upon a time the less advantaged were an important factor in Americas success, because America provided the opportunities for them to move out of that status. At present this is no longer quite the case.

China is moving up, but for every new factory opening there is a failed and derelict one. China is undergoing a huge expansion in housing, but that shouldn't worry or surprise anyone, China's is a socially orientated society with huge housing need. However, China has a problem, a ticking social time bomb from which it cannot escape, the ratio of women to men is massively out of balance and the internal consequences may prove catastrophic. India is also moving up, but has in-built limiters with a rigid 'caste' system and hard religious divisions.

Am I worried about America. No. Reasons, neither of those two countries can feed themselves while America can — and with a huge surplus. Do those countries have the natural resourses to support their own growth, they don't, but America (and Australia/Canada) do.

America will re-find her horizons, just needs the right circumstance and set of people.

[poisonowns]

Read about China's ghost cities and you'll see exactly why China is in the midst of a bubble that is about to burst. China publishes growth statistics based on what they build, but not what is actually purchased and used. No doubt their economy is on the rise. There's a really cool episode of Vice on this topic too.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

Okay guys, 44 more posts to go... just don't even read the posts until we hit 150, then have at it! lol

Not quite. Several posts don't qualify as they are less than 30 words and are off-topic... like this one!!

[tippexx]

Read about China's ghost cities and you'll see exactly why China is in the midst of a bubble that is about to burst. China publishes growth statistics based on what they build, but not what is actually purchased and used.

A case I think of China trying to show a progressive, social face but the wages of the workforce haven't caught up sufficiently for ordinary folk to be able to buy or live in them. Homes are usually built for families, and if China can't attract in millions of women over the next twenty years those homes might only have bachelors living in them anyway.

[ATGroom]

Here's the Shanghai skyline changes, 1990 to 2010

Yeah, and Pudong has the Shanghai Tower now, 2nd tallest building in the world and it doesn't even appear to be under construction in that picture.

That said, I'm sure someone visiting NYC in 1925 and then 1935 would have been similarly astounded by the progress of development...

[shlomo]

I personally think China and other emerging economies will continue to grow at much higher rates for the next 20-30 years. The only way that the US can keep up is that we invest more in infrastructur as well as invest more into education/schools. The US needs to produce more actual goods instead of relying on countries with cheap labor to make all our goods. We will only have the same economic influence as we do today if we can grow jobs at home and invest in our childrens' education. It's a tough question, one that I can't speculate on in less than 30 words (I mean there are academics that devote their whole lives to this sort of question).

I hope the US does not feel the need to "keep up". America will be a superpower force for another few generations, maybe more, if they choose, but they will have to share power a bit more is all. If they are accepting of this fact, they will be fine. More than fine. If not, they will be dragged down by their own pursuit and envy. I truly hope they do the former. This world needs America with all its attributes and faults. Without it as the world leader, I am scared. Scared as a Canadian, scared as a person who wants democracy, scared as a Jew, scared as a person who loves freedom (with all its limitations) and scared as a moral and ethical person. I think many of us would not feel so secure no matter where we live if China, Pakistan, India or Russia were the dominant force on the planet.

[SaintLuis]

Those ghost cities remind me of soviet republic's massive manufactured communities. Almost spooky.

While America's continued tilt leftward despite the terrible 4 decade long track record outs everything at risk, it's just hard to see another country replacing the economic and social structure we have.

The question, is if we have in fact reached the progressive tipping point, or if we can still amend the massive boat anchors we've created for ourselves to drag - like medicare, social security, the war on poverty, and even to some extent the military. These, combined with the federal workforce (which has largely become a welfare system in itself) and the other products of our overly progressed tax system that strive for equality-of-result rather than the equality-of-opportunity, are the items putting everything we have gained to date at risk, and put our population at real risk from internal and external threats to our way of life.

It is that equality of opportunity that has made us the light in a very dark world. This nonsensical, vote-buying BS perpetuates a dangerous and disconnected ruling class that benefits too much by the contrived policies of equality, whether based in race, class, gender, or any other divisive element they can latch onto to manufacture alliances and demonize an opponent to elevate themselves.

If we can't solve the problems of our embedded ruling class, a group that flies in the fact of everything our constitutional republic stands for, decline will continue, slowly, for a long time. But there still is hope, and a lot of new and young people are intelligently seeing the errors of our ways,however born from good intentions, and want to genuinely make a change. That gives me hope.

[earthson]

I'll never believe that any educated person actually believes that the Socialist and Communist economic models will work. There's only one economic model that has proven it works. Even with all it's flaws, Capitalism made the greatest country the world has ever known, and Socialism is going to bring it to its knees.

Let's not forget that indigenous peoples were using the "Communist" model with unbroken success for THOUSANDS of years before they were outgunned and out-smallpoxed by the colonists. The Aniishnabe of the Great Lakes alone developed a rich culture along with a life expectancy of about 90 years at contact.

And what really propelled America's economy to the forefront was the widespread use of slavery. Imagine: 300 years of not having to pay labor! (And if anyone suggests that "slaves were compensated well with food, clothing, and shelter, I will tell you "Good day!")

[DrunkenMonkey]

See, it's this 'greatest country the world has ever known' thing that rubs me the wrong way. Imagine your neighbor declaring at a neighborhood picnic that his family is the 'greatest family this city has ever known' and you start to see how ridiculous it is.

[poisonowns]

http://youtu.be/M4IjTUxZORE

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SaintLuis]

Let's not forget that indigenous peoples were using the "Communist" model with unbroken success for THOUSANDS of years before they were outgunned and out-smallpoxed by the colonists. The Aniishnabe of the Great Lakes alone developed a rich culture along with a life expectancy of about 90 years at contact.

And what really propelled America's economy to the forefront was the widespread use of slavery. Imagine: 300 years of not having to pay labor! (And if anyone suggests that "slaves were compensated well with food, clothing, and shelter, I will tell you "Good day!")

The slave economy sustained America for a great many years, but it was long, long gone by the beginning of the 20th century, when America was still relatively irrelevant internationally. What propelled America's economy in the 20th century into the world power it has become, was WWII, and the destruction of every piece of infrastructure and economic capability world wide - except for our own. Our bread basket, the rust belt cities from Detroit to Cleveland to Pittsburgh, and our financial capability is what grew this nation ot the heights it was at.

Come 1970, when the rest of the world, Japan and Germnay most notably returned to productive relevance, the fantasy that our union based manufacturing and export driven economy collapsed on itself. Without the educational centers, the free market health care and high military R&D that spawned everything or technological relevance to day , we wouldn't have survived the 90s.

The slave labor argument is bankrupt, and a century and a half off target. Slaves didn't mobilze US forces to Europe and Asia simultaneously, our industry and societal structure did.

[Cmontoya79]

Slave labor is modern day prison labor, privatized prisons are big business in the USA. They produce goods such as furniture. Companies still out source and pay garbage, pennies a day for foreign "labor". Companies are world wide and working conditions in these lands is sub human in many instances. Forget safety and regulation. Slave labor is alive and well.

One big reason we don't have great infrastructure and transportation systems, slave/low wage labor built the infrastructure that is the rail roads, which led to roads etc. les we forget the huge profits made on the backs of low payed miners who were often killed either by profession danger or by security forces hired by the company to kill workers who are striking or attempting to unionize.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[earthson]

The slave economy sustained America for a great many years, but it was long, long gone by the beginning of the 20th century, when America was still relatively irrelevant internationally.

The slave labor argument is bankrupt, and a century and a half off target. Slaves didn't mobilze US forces to Europe and Asia simultaneously, our industry and societal structure did.

I do believe that America was internationally relevant enough to help kick off the Industrial Revolution mid 1800s and quickly become a leader in production and technology BEFORE the 20th century.

To suggest that slave labor had nothing to do with America's present economic situation and influence is like saying the steam engine had nothing to do with modern transportation.

[SaintLuis]

I do believe that America was internationally relevant enough to help kick off the Industrial Revolution mid 1800s and quickly become a leader in production and technology BEFORE the 20th century.

To suggest that slave labor had nothing to do with America's present economic situation and influence is like saying the steam engine had nothing to do with modern transportation.

We're just so far from an agrarian society, and at the end of our largely agrarian nature, had been out of the slavery era for so long (almost a century), that I think comparing the locomotive's effects on transporations, which lasted for over a hundred years, well past the Federal Highway system was created (and still to a great extent today) to slavery as a comparable element in our economic maturation, is totally and factually incorrect.

After reconstruction, the South became an economic pit of societal poverty. The cash crops of the 18th and 19th centuries were very far from relevant in our national economy, which by the Emancipation Proclamation, had shifted to textiles, manufacturing, finance and non-agrarian exports. The unrelated industry that drove America by 1880 was largely northern and western, non post-reconstruction industries, not tied to slave labor or the vestiges of it that survived in the decades following the civil war. Our economy wasn't even regionally focused in the areas where slavery was relevant. Cotton, tobacco and indigo had all been crushed by over production and low prices, and had become irrelevant in the US's establishment as an economically relevant nation.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

Long story short, this nation became great in the gilded age on a non-slavery based economy in the north and west, not just because slavery was abolished by then in the south, but because even the stubborn southern states that held onto things like indentured servitude and sharecropping, were no longer economically relevant. The slave trade isn't want grew this nation to hte ability to fight massive international wars from afar voluntarily. That was heavy industry including the railroads, steel, mining, meat, processing, machinery and what is still today the pinnacle of international finance - Wall Street.

But I never said it had NOTHING to do with our economy. I said it sustained us for a great many years. It just wasn't relevant at the era when we became internationally relevant in the late 19th century.