America Not in Decline

[Lemur]

A refreshing essay from Foreign Policy confirms something I've been suspecting for a few years now: The USA is not rolling toward collapse (although every heavy-breathing pundit will tell you the sky is falling).

1) The United States is successfully deleveraging. As the McKinsey Global Institute notes, the United States is actually doing a relatively good job of slimming down total debt -- i.e., consumer, investor and public debt combined. Sure, public debt has exploded, but as MGI points out, that really is the proper way of doing things after a financial bubble [...]

2) Manufacturing is on the mend. Another positive trend, contra the Harvard Business School and the GOP presidential candidates, is in manufacturing. Some analysts have already predicted a revival in that sector, and now the data appears to be backing up that prediction. [...]

3) A predicted decline in energy insecurity. British Petroleum has issued their Energy Outlook for 2030. The Guardian's Richard Wachman provides a useful summary: Growth in shale oil and gas supplies will make the US virtually self-sufficient in energy by 2030, according to a BP report published on Wednesday. [...]

Since the Second World War, the pattern in the global political economy has been for the United States to adjust to systemic shocks better than any potential challenger country. A lot of very smart people have predicted that this time was different -- the United States wouldn't be able to do it again. These trends suggest that maybe, just maybe, that might be wrong.

Am I missing anything?

[gaelic cowboy]

Are you missing anything hmm, no I would say it is spot on to be honest.

Much of the "Merica in Decline" stuff is overblown, America still has per head of population plenty room to expand on most indicators when taken on a national basis.


You population is predicted to keep increasing, and you land per head is bigger than most.

If you manage your resources properly even unsustainable Las Vegas can continue to grow albeit at a slower pace.

America has ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific giving a flexibility on trade and millitary resources most nations dont have.

American strategy was/is predicated on the need to prevent consolidation of an aggressive power on the central plain of Europe. A Russia, Germany or France that had controlled all Europe and the colonies of the same would have buried the US eventually.

We know that Europe is on the downswing so it merely remains to prevent Russia from being capable of dominating Europe, if Russia owns European manufacturing and warm water ports they can given time can overwhelm the US. However dont worry it's not going to happen for the reason it has never worked namely Ireland, Iceland and the UK unless you control them you will give up control of the Atlantic eventually.

The brief period after 1991 spolied us all really, it seems like the US is declining but really it is just assuming the position it always had.



Also one last peice on this idea of decline is to my mind it's always predicated on the idea of the military.


By this measure todays britain should be a poorer and weaker place that 1880 yes/no well I think we can all agree that todays Britain is richer than 1880 and the millitary far stronger than 1880.

[Greyblades]

By this measure todays britain should be a poorer and weaker place that 1880 yes/no well I think we can all agree that todays Britain is richer than 1880 and the millitary far stronger than 1880.

Really? I would have thought that Britain with it's empire would have been (for it's time) considered far stronger than today's army.

[gaelic cowboy]

Really? I would have thought that Britain with it's empire would have been (for it's time) considered far stronger than today's army.

Who cares about "for it's time" it's today we live in, in 1880 most people lived short, dirty and poor lives in the UK

children died younger as did women in childbirth, well over 60-70% of people died before 60yrs of age.

Britains industry depended on tarriffs and raw materials from the colonies, thats no longer the case now it's services both domestic and exported ones in a open market.

Defensively Britain was always under threat at home due to commitments abroad, basically her empire drained millitary resources from the homeplace to protect strategic interests abroad.

Germany/France were the biggest threats when Britain still had an empire, they were able to threaten Britain without having to invade it's empire or Britain.
Britain then had to ensure it's alliances on the continent discouraged too great a single power on the continent, this would give it time to utilise it's colonies to eventually overwhelm an enemy.

Todays britain is better on every box you could want to tick.

[Greyblades]

Oh. I believe said stronger millitary not better way of life, and "for its time" probably does count as a country's strength is usually measured by comparing it to other countries and considering at the time Britain was in the top three then not the top 5 as is now I assume it was stronger then than it is now.

[Vladimir]

Oh. I believe said stronger millitary not better way of life, and "for its time" probably does count as a country's strength is usually measured by comparing it to other countries and considering at the time Britain was in the top three then not the top 5 as is now I assume it was stronger then than it is now.

It may be a problem with context then. I'm inclined to agree with your view but many people are thinking in terms relative to the country itself.

[PanzerJaeger]

Todays britain is better on every box you could want to tick.

Well, obviously. It would be difficult to find a nation on earth that does not have a better standard of living than it did 100+ years ago, including those in the third world. It is a bit disingenuous to use natural human advancements to gloss over real and/or relative rises and declines.

For Britain, I would argue that it suffered relative declines during the World War periods when larger powers emerged to challenge its supremacy and then real declines after the Second World War as its economic system fell apart. Thatcherism re-aligned the economy with that of the rest of the world and set the stage for an impressive rise (whether it be in relative power or standard of living).

[Greyblades]

Either way it sure isnt powerful enough anymore to force China into buying opium.

[Furunculus]

Are you missing anything hmm, no I would say it is spot on to be honest.

agreed, america is the archtype of the open and innovative society, therefore it will be among the most adaptable to the challenges that all nations face throughout the course of the timespan.

more adaptable nations have a longer timespan, all other things being equal.

[Vladimir]

agreed, america is the archtype of the open and innovative society, therefore it will be among the most adaptable to the challenges that all nations face throughout the course of the timespan.

more adaptable nations have a longer timespan, all other things being equal.

Really? I thought it was Norway and Canada.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-dictatorships

[Strike For The South]

I fully expect to have to eat my children. IF I CAN AFFORD TO HAVE THEM

I'm not worried. Our biggest problems are one creditor holding 10% of our doubt and one speculative agency speculating that our speculative credit rating got a little worse.

[Papewaio]

Meh that same creditor needs basic ore and gas from one of your most erstwhile allies.

The creditor is also running a trade deficit with them too, so whilst it could hurt your ally... Your ally could taper off energy exports in favour of Japan and India.

[Furunculus]

nope.

http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/uploads/9.1.12.pdf
http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/3G.pdf
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...ad=rja&cad=rja
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...er_in_2050.pdf

[Hax]

Besides, the South Will Rise Again.

(am I doing this right?)

[rory_20_uk]

America is in relative decline compared to, say 25 years ago. America is changing its doctrine of two simultaneous wars to only one.

1) America has tried to keep the increase in living standards by one bubble after the other. Real increases are far more difficult due to increased competition from abroad.

2) That is genuinely great news and if can be kept up will buttress the country in years to come. Any country that fails to create real items is constantly having to watch their backs.

3) Shale gas will probably be a good source of energy, but there is an unknown environmental impact - well, it is known but companies tend to point out tap water that one can light as a bonus.

America isn't going to implode and become a wasteland but a slow adjustment is probably likely as the artificial suppression of China has ended and the latest attempts by Europe to immolate itself are not as great as they were at the start of the last century.

[Lemur]

America is in relative decline compared to, say 25 years ago.

I don't think 1987 was so fantastic. The advent of Max Headroom and Space: 1999 cannot save an otherwise lackluster year, what with the market crash of '87.

I keed, I keed. The same trends that are cited for American decline today have their roots in the policies of the late 1970s and 1980s. Energy shocks, offshoring of manufacturing, trade deficits, budget deficits, consumer deficits, deregulation of the financial sector ... all of this was happening in that period. If anything, I believe we have come through the aftershocks of those policies, and are well on our way toward taking the best elements and discarding the dross.

As for military supremacy, America does not need to be the preeminent power of the globe. We can't afford it; no single nation can.* We need to protect our interests, certainly, and we need to defend ourselves, but the gross imperial gambits of Bush II are now rightly seen as a budget-destroying error. The same sort of global overreach that did in the British Empire. I'm not in favor of isolationism, but a re-think of our global policing is no bad thing.

Our best days are ahead of us. I firmly believe this.




* Indeed, there's a good argument to be made that a bloated defense budget not only weakens us economically, but weakens us militarily.

[W]e have new fiefdoms pushing new products and guarding pots of resources that are not integrated with the rest of the force. We have the director of this center of excellence and the commanding general of that command, each with a flashy name and each with a new age explanation as to why we need them in modern warfare. Meanwhile, they pursue programs and supposed solutions in single-minded vigor, guarding and expending resources in a rabbit hole rather than pursuing business and military strategies integrated across functions and time. Look at a professional journal and see who is publishing most of the articles you don't read. Directors and staffs of these agencies are constantly justifying their existence and their pot of money. This, my friends, is the path to hell, decadence, and strategic decline. [...]

While each believes he or she is doing his best to save the world, the rest of us know most of this is a joke. The joke is on us, though, because no one cares to impart discipline on the system that got them to where they are and their interests have been so fully entwined with the interests of the organization and of the nation that there is no discerning them anymore.

[Xiahou]

Our best days are ahead of us. I firmly believe this.

You're not worried by unsustainable growth in entitlement spending? Or are you just confident someone will have the courage to fix them? I agree that the US has some good fundamentals, but we also face some daunting challenges.

Also, while we can certainly trim the fat on defense, I don't think it's accurate to paint it as "budget destroying". You could completely eliminate defense spending and we'd still be running a healthy deficit. At least defense is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.

[Lemur]

You're not worried by unsustainable growth in entitlement spending?

One of several concerns, certainly, but I am quite certain that we will address it. I also think the tax code is a joke and a drag on the economy, needing radical simplification. Again, I believe we will address it.

Much less clear on how we will deal with some macro-economic trends, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

Also, while we can certainly trim the fat on defense, I don't think it's accurate to paint it as "budget destroying".

Conflating two separate issues; defense budget and the two off-budget wars we waged in the 00s. I do believe the DoD budgeting and procurement system encourages single-issue, single-program fiefdoms that drain away millions while doing little to help our men and women in uniform. The Iraq war, on the other hand, cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion (some estimates go as high as $4 trillion, when factoring indirect costs), which was, in fact "budget-destroying."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.the-american-interest.com...cfm?piece=1183

(long)

I was going to post this in its own thread but I don't have much more than a recommendation. It fits here well enough because his topic is what needs to happen politically...why we are in a decline only if we think we have to stick with a certain system. Although I think there may be some contradictions with the above article.


Also, here's another article on "the myth of american decline":

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...ower-declinism

[ICantSpellDawg]

America is in a relative decline, not an actual one at this point. It could go that way, but my general understanding of the world is that when your competitors do well, you do better, unless you are a crappy competitor.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I read Sasaki's first link and it was very good all the way up until the end.

NOTE: To understand this, you have to read the article.
Those we call "conservatives" want liberalism 3.0 and those we call "liberals" want liberalism 4.1. But then he just goes on to say at the end that what we need and are ready for is liberalism 5.0. Except if everyone is looking to the past, who is going to create liberalism 5.0? This is why I feel America is declining, or about to decline. No one is looking towards the future, they are just clinging to their old ideas and feelings.

[Lemur]

[W]e are certainly not going to be the top dog in, say, fifty years or so if things keep going the way they are

If there's one thing you can count on, it's that linear trends don't stay linear.

What is in danger of collapse is the US political system

Unfortunately, when you declare all government to be evil, and then set out to prove it, there are unintended consequences.