America the superpower melts down

[Hey Bubu]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...wer/index.html

Memo to the CIA: You may not be prepared for time travel, but welcome to 2025 anyway! Your rooms may be a little small, your ability to demand better accommodations may have gone out the window, and the amenities may not be to your taste, but get used to it. It's going to be your reality from now on.

OK, now for the serious version of the above: In November 2008, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an affiliate of the Central Intelligence Agency, issued the latest in a series of futuristic publications intended to guide the incoming Obama administration. Peering into its analytic crystal ball in a report titled "Global Trends 2025," it predicted that America's global preeminence would gradually disappear over the next 15 years -- in conjunction with the rise of new global powerhouses, especially China and India. The report examined many facets of the future strategic environment, but its most startling, and news-making, finding concerned the projected long-term erosion of American dominance and the emergence of new global competitors. "Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor [in 2025]," it stated definitively, the country's "relative strength -- even in the military realm -- will decline and U.S. leverage will become more constrained."

That, of course, was then; this -- some 11 months into the future -- is now and how things have changed. Futuristic predictions will just have to catch up to the fast-shifting realities of the present moment. Although published after the onset of the global economic meltdown was under way, the report was written before the crisis reached its full proportions and so emphasized that the decline of American power would be gradual, extending over the assessment's 15-year time horizon. But the economic crisis and attendant events have radically upset that timetable. As a result of the mammoth economic losses suffered by the United States over the past year and China's stunning economic recovery, the global power shift the report predicted has accelerated. For all practical purposes, 2025 is here already.

[johnny861]

You can see that in all the regions we have slowed relations with. Wherever we slack or pull back from, other nations are going to jump in.

The Philippines is an example of this. After 9/11, we backed off our relationship some with the Philippines while we focused on the war on terror. As a result, the Chinese and South Korean governments have been stepping in and securing contracts for infrastructure projects, securing new trade relations, etc. This used to be a dominate area for American and Japanese diplomacy and businesses.

[J. Fees]

this is a way for the right wing military guys to fear people into wars and defense spending. if china and india take over in the next 15 years, it would only be because of a massive natural disaster. Some people said Japan was gonna take over in the 80s too by the way because of their economy. Problem is that all these other countries have to sell to us, because we are the biggest consumer. Its really not in their best interest to push down america too far, because regardless of how many people they have, they have to have money to buy things.

[david austin]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

this is a way for the right wing military guys to fear people into wars and defense spending. if china and india take over in the next 15 years, it would only be because of a massive natural disaster. Some people said Japan was gonna take over in the 80s too by the way because of their economy. Problem is that all these other countries have to sell to us, because we are the biggest consumer. Its really not in their best interest to push down america too far, because regardless of how many people they have, they have to have money to buy things.

Middle class China and India are the fastest growing segment in the (1st) world.

The main idea is that America is dying as the growth engine it has been for the past 3 or 4 decades. This potential global change of guard should cause defense spending increases as issues with trade, economies, and the race for resources will no doubt spark many more wars in the not so distant future.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

Some people said Japan was gonna take over in the 80s too by the way because of their economy.

who would have thought it was their culture that would "take over."

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by Hey Bubu

who would have thought it was their culture that would "take over."

i guess they did from a consumer electronics and auto standpoint.

ill agree with you da that their middle class is growing, but 15 years is a pretty short time frame for them to catch the U.S.

[Deff Gordon]

our economy more than triples anybody else's (closer to 4x actually)

[J. Fees]

defense spending seems like the worse crutch to stand on for an aging economy. Sooner or later you have to go to war, which always turns out bad. I'm sure at this point ending the war would hurt our economy, with proliferation of private companies involved on both fronts. So whats the answer, keep fighting?

look at the last 8 years and tell me how many faragaba's you want running around on the streets.

[david austin]

Its less about them catching and more about them gaining period.

The relative size (of current GDP) isnt nearly as important as the growth model.

[J. Fees]

i see what you are saying, but the game to keep up is never going to result in anything productive. Its the inherenent flaw with capitalism, its all competitiveness, with no real end game. No one has ever held on to the top spot forever, whether it be the Roman Empire or the Steelers in the 70s, and the U.S. will be no different. At some point the U.S. needs to turn inward, and quit sweeping our own problems under the rug. To me its a burning bridges or building bridges type situation.

[Hey Bubu]

"The question remains: How much longer will Washington feel that Americans can afford to subsidize a global role that includes garrisoning much of the planet and fighting distant wars in the name of global security, when the American economy is losing so much ground to its competitors? This is the dilemma President Obama and his advisers must confront in the altered world of 2025."

from the article.

[Coyotl]

Originally Posted by david austin

Middle class China and India are the fastest growing segment in the (1st) world.

The main idea is that America is dying as the growth engine it has been for the past 3 or 4 decades. This potential global change of guard should cause defense spending increases as issues with trade, economies, and the race for resources will no doubt spark many more wars in the not so distant future.

the US and China's economies respectively are now linked in such a way that the world depends on both to avoid global economic meltdown. The world is seeing the beginning of an era where America is no longer the sole economic superpower.

We depend on their 10% annual GDP growth being there so there is plenty of cash for us to borrow. Were it not for that growth it's safe to say we would be fucked.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by david austin

Middle class China and India are the fastest growing segment in the (1st) world.

The main idea is that America is dying as the growth engine it has been for the past 3 or 4 decades. This potential global change of guard should cause defense spending increases as issues with trade, economies, and the race for resources will no doubt spark many more wars in the not so distant future.

Our Navy controls the world's shipping lanes and (excepting some very few and relatively obscure regions) guarantees the safe transit of all shippers reghardless of flag.

That's a good thing. I don't see it changing. Far from our influence waning I see it increasing as europe and Japan dies and India rises. There are alternatives, the world can have us around as policemen or it can have some one else. Some one else is going to be worse. I don't like the role I just like the alternative less.

China will implode, only a matter of time before the party decides to yank the chain on the south and coastal regions and pull power back to the center. That expenasion you note is the engine that'll drive the party reaction.

Originally Posted by Coyotl

We depend on their 10% annual GDP growth being there so there is plenty of cash for us to borrow. Were it not for that growth it's safe to say we would be fucked.

That would make sense if they bought our products. They don't. They buy our paper. We rely on their artificially depressed labor market and lax environmental controls to provide us with cheap goods.

Originally Posted by Hey Bubu

"The question remains: How much longer will Washington feel that Americans can afford to subsidize a global role that includes garrisoning much of the planet and fighting distant wars in the name of global security, when the American economy is losing so much ground to its competitors? This is the dilemma President Obama and his advisers must confront in the altered world of 2025."

from the article.

Fighting distant wars: they are of extremely low intensity. So, we can do it for quite a very long time at current levels. We've fought two for nearly ten years. I think we'll do less of it in the short term but I suspect we'll still employ a degree of gunboat (or cruise missile) diplomacy to let unruly bastards know we can fuck their shit up within a half an hour from pretty much anywhere with no need to put a single boot on the ground. We'll militarize space to make this advantage even more stark and make every effort to preclude others from joining us. It'll be cheap and effective. There's a type of bomb, eseentially a gravity bomb luanched from orbit that relies on velocity and mass for explosive force that doesn't require nuclear fuel (forget what they're called) but they've got the potential to relegate much of our policeman role to a videogame.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by PETA

Our Navy controls the world's shipping lanes and (excepting some very few and relatively obscure regions) guarantees the safe transit of all shippers reghardless of flag.

That's a good thing. I don't see it changing. Far from our influence waning I see it increasing as europe and Japan dies and India rises. There are alternatives, the world can have us around as policemen or it can have some one else. Some one else is going to be worse. I don't like the role I just like the alternative less.

Thank you for the bolded. I've been screaming this for a long time, but again, I understand that us passing the reins this late in the game is like trying to not hit a whammy on Press Your Luck.

As to the trending described here, yeah, we've been on the decline for a lot longer than noted. 2025 was a generous date to even begin with if you look back to the immediate effects after 9/11 to us (the U.S.).

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Thank you for the bolded. I've been screaming this for a long time, but again, I understand that us passing the reins this late in the game is like trying to not hit a whammy on Press Your Luck.

As to the trending described here, yeah, we've been on the decline for a lot longer than noted. 2025 was a generous date to even begin with if you look back to the immediate effects after 9/11 to us (the U.S.).

'splain how?

our economy is larger than any one else's

our navy controls the oceans

our satellites control world communication

our debt controls the economies of the world

our language is the internation language of trade and diplomacy and the interwebs

our culture is imported, mimicked, copied and otherwise gobbled up

our geographic position leaves us vulnerable to pretty much nothing but gradual acculteraion from the south

where's the decline?