Should the United States Remain a Global Super Power?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Good short video of how the US became a super power and built the institutions that sustain our leadership role and influence around the world.

Why would anyone want to destroy that? 

[David Dennison 19441]

It's probably not up to us.

[Brisketexan 106625]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's probably not up to us.

To the extent that it is -- and it is, to a large extent -- we've CLEARLY chosen the other path.

I mean, why WOULD we want to continue to follow a path that 1) has ensured a peaceful Europe for the longest period in history, and 2) provided this country countless opportunities to become wealthy?  Man, that's stupid.  Crawling into our turtle shell and treating the world like a zero-sum game (how much pie I get isn't important; it's just important that you get none/less), THAT'S the ticket!

[Jiggy-Z 3506]

Chris Hedges (journalist/author) has some pretty good thoughts on this.  Claims we are well on our way with decline based on common behaviors throughout history and current actions. A bit long of a watch for a quick view.  Good for a watch in the evening.

 

[SubliminalHorn 6995]

The sun is definitely setting on our American superpower status. Trumpkins wanted us to trash our institutions and cede our standing to China. So, there you have. Elections have consequences  thanks, trumpkins. 

[F250 29175]

A few years ago, I listened to a debate on NPR between two writers about who would follow the United States as the next Super Power, China or India. It was obvious that it would be China so the debate shifted to who would you prefer, China or India?

The guy arguing for India referenced the strong British influence left on India's legal system. He then juxtaposed that to China not acknowledging Lockean rights as we understood them in the West.

The Chinese guy arguing for China just dismissed the importance of the West's obsession with rights and went to explain how much China was able to accomplish in a top-down society.

That gave me a major WTF moment and hoped we wouldn't ever see China as the only Super Power in the world.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by F250

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

A few years ago, I listened to a debate on NPR between two writers about who would follow the United States as the next Super Power, China or India. It was obvious that it would be China so the debate shifted to who would you prefer, China or India?

The guy arguing for India referenced the strong British influence left on India's legal system. He then juxtaposed that to China not acknowledging Lockean rights as we understood them in the West.

The Chinese guy arguing for China just dismissed the importance of the West's obsession with rights and went to explain how much China was able to accomplish in a top-down society.

That gave me a major WTF moment and hoped we wouldn't ever see China as the only Super Power in the world.

 

 

China as the next world super power ?  I don't see it, from a military perspective at least.  Their philosophy is so insular, they look inward not outward. They don't reward initiative. They look to other countries technology to build upon. They don't innovate, because the nail sticking out usually gets hammered in their society.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

22 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

China as the next world super power ?  I don't see it, from a military perspective at least.  Their philosophy is so insular, they look inward not outward. They don't reward initiative. They look to other countries technology to build upon. They don't innovate, because the nail sticking out usually gets hammered in their society.

Globally dominant military power probably is not required to accomplish China's strategic objectives, and the idea that they aren't innovating (and out-innovating the US in a number of crucial technology areas) is total nonsense.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Globally dominant military power probably is not required to accomplish China's strategic objectives, and the idea that they aren't innovating (and out-innovating the US in a number of crucial technology areas) is total nonsense.  

They can't even design, and build their own naval vessels. The poach other countries technology. Granted cyber warfare could change everything, so who knows what's in store.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They can't even design, and build their own naval vessels. The poach other countries technology. Granted cyber warfare could change everything, so who knows what's in store.

Hegemony is based on economic/trade strength just as much as militarily.

China has a shitload of the former. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Yeah I'm not thoroughly convinced that they are really innovating.  Copying someone else cheaper and more commercially, sure.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/gauging-the-strength-of-chinese-innovation

[Guest]

In the post WW2 era from 1950-2000, the US was the most dominant empire in history.  We have some competition now as other nations and regions are getting more organized and people think we are losing superpower status because they compare to the period of complete US supremacy that they grew up in.  But the idea that we are on the verge of losing superpower status is absurdity.  All empires crumble and so will the US, but it will be a long slow decay and will have nothing to do with China manufacturing garbage that's not even of economic interest for the lowest wage Americans.  China has hundreds of millions of poorly educated civilians.  This is not an advantage in modern times; it is an anchor.  Even China knows this, which is why they don't give a fuck about allowing millions of their own to die in the name of progress.  When more and more of China's population becomes educated and the middle class increases by percentage, they will start to demand rights and China will have major internal upheaval.  They will not be able to maintain autocratic control indefinitely and the very thing they need to do in order to be an actual competitor to the US is the very thing that will lead to the demise of the currently structured PRC.  The Chinese people are not the Borg.  There is no 1.3 billion monolithic thinking tireless working, college educated Chinese.  Mostly shit tons of people living in shanties and lighting wood fires.  

Edited October 9, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

In the post WW2 era from 1950-2000, the US was the most dominant empire in history.  We have some competition now as other nations and regions are getting more organized and people think we are losing superpower status because they compare to the period of complete US supremacy that they grew up in.  But the idea that we are on the verge of losing superpower status is absurdity.  All empires crumble and so will the US, but it will be a long slow decay and will have nothing to do with China manufacturing garbage that's not even of economic interest for the lowest wage Americans.  China has hundreds of millions of poorly educated civilians.  This is not an advantage in modern times; it is an anchor.  Even China knows this, which is why they don't give a fuck about allowing millions of their own to die in the name of progress.  When more and more of China's population becomes educated and the middle class increases by percentage, they will start to demand rights and China will have major internal upheaval.  They will not be able to maintain autocratic control indefinitely and the very thing they need to do in order to be an actual competitor to the US is the very thing that will lead to the demise of the currently structured PRC.  The Chinese people are not the Borg.  There is no 1.3 billion monolithic thinking tireless working, college educated Chinese.  Mostly shit tons of people living in shanties and lighting wood fires.  

That's cute.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

29 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They can't even design, and build their own naval vessels. The poach other countries technology. Granted cyber warfare could change everything, so who knows what's in store.

They don't have to go to war with us.  We are turning insular.  China can just play nice with everyone else which they've been doing.  Japan and South Korea will look their way for trade.  China isn't interested in territorial control of either one.  They're interested in trade like we once were, so its not an impossible event.  Neither is the idea of Europe telling us to fuck off as we are now trying to intentionally fuck up their experiment at unity.  So then what?  Do we take our awesome toys and go home, or do we start a shooting war as the bad guys?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's cute.

During this period, the US controlled all major global trade routes.  We controlled the skies and the seas over most of the world.  We could deploy troops to any corner of the globe.  The decisions of the US had significant impact for the entire planet.  We set and influenced policy to our will, either directly or indirectly, for the entire western world.  We were the military, economic, cultural, and technological leaders of the entire world.  Neither the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongolians, etc could make these claims nor had near the global influence.  I await your single sentence reply containing your deep insights based on not even a cursory study or understanding of anything at all.  

[David Dennison 19441]

7 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

During this period, the US controlled all major global trade routes.  We controlled the skies and the seas over most of the world.  We could deploy troops to any corner of the globe.  The decisions of the US had significant impact for the entire planet.  We set and influenced policy to our will, either directly or indirectly, for the entire western world.  We were the military, economic, cultural, and technological leaders of the entire world.  Neither the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongolians, etc could make these claims nor had near the global influence.  I await your single sentence reply containing your deep insights based on not even a cursory study or understanding of anything at all.  

I agree we were the most dominant power during that time period, but you made the assertion that during that same time period, we were also the most powerful empire in history.

That's cute.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I agree we were the most dominant power during that time period, but you made the assertion that during that same time period, we were also the most powerful empire in history.

That's cute.

We've never been an empire that is directly comparable to past empires other than our Manifest Destiny period.  In recent times, the British Empire was much larger than the US empire.  Even during the time period in question, the USSR controlled more land and people under their flag, and operated as a true empire.  We made allies, often by force, but I wouldn't call that imperial exactly.  Rome kept expanding its borders.  So did the UK.  So did the USSR to a point.

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

We've never been an empire that is directly comparable to past empires other than our Manifest Destiny period.  In recent times, the British Empire was much larger than the US empire.  Even during the time period in question, the USSR controlled more land and people under their flag, and operated as a true empire.  We made allies, often by force, but I wouldn't call that imperial exactly.  Rome kept expanding its borders.  So did the UK.  So did the USSR to a point.

Spock is mistaking military power for imperial influence.

It's a common mistake.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I agree we were the most dominant power during that time period, but you made the assertion that during that same time period, we were also the most powerful empire in history.

That's cute.

To save you the 5 seconds it takes to craft your brilliant insights in response to anything I write - I'm not going to bother responding to you on this or any other thread because I've yet to see you write anything even remotely interesting or insightful and it is always a waste of my time to engage you.  I wish you the best of luck on your useless low-effort cast net posting style.  

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

To save you the 5 seconds it takes to craft your brilliant insights in response to anything I write - I'm not going to bother responding to you on this or any other thread because I've yet to see you write anything even remotely interesting or insightful and it is always a waste of my time to engage you.  I wish you the best of luck on your useless low-effort cast net posting style.  

Settle down, Spock.

[Anastasis 23699]

Hey, what's not to like about imperialism, militarism, and monetary manipulation as the foundation of global hegemony. It's all good. Until it isn't anymore. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

 

[RDCanecutter 26853]

Q: Should the United States Remain a Global Super Power?

A: No. There is an entire galaxy out there we should be conquering. And possibly eating. When in Aldebaran do as Aldebarans do.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

14 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Q: Should the United States Remain a Global Super Power?

A: No. There is an entire galaxy out there we should be conquering. And possibly eating. When in Aldebaran do as Aldebarans do.

Well the Moons ours (we got a flag there) so we've gone solar system.

[Buzzrock 15115]

Sure, why not.

[happyfunball 481]

I think we are seeing what happens when the US abdicates its role as global superpower and policeman. 

I would not count on China as they are having significant internal issues which will get worse imo

[bernorange 8385]

It is a fools errand to attempt to play shoot the moon with infinitely long rails, but that is exactly what the world decided to do in the 70s.  Maybe it was the best option left on the table.  Maybe not.  An unintended consequence stemming from nations being unwilling or unable to live within their means and a public unwilling to accept localized responsibility and risk.  Money as debt and compounding interest will eventually force a disorderly change.  There does not appear to be sufficient political will to effect an orderly change while it is still possible.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

It is a fools errand to attempt to play shoot the moon with infinitely long rails, but that is exactly what the world decided to do in the 70s.  Maybe it was the best option left on the table.  Maybe not.  An unintended consequence stemming from nations being unwilling or unable to live within their means and a public unwilling to accept localized responsibility and risk.  Money as debt and compounding interest will eventually force a disorderly change.  There does not appear to be sufficient political will to effect an orderly change while it is still possible.

Right. We can eat, have a roof over our heads, and build rockets. Don't need money for any of them. Fiat money is about that rocket engineer trading his service through 100 different people trading services so that the farmer will trade him food.

And it works perfectly as a current bartering tool. Our problem is that we primarily use it to store value long term. No guarantees there.  Use Tide instead. Its always gonna be tradeable for a meal. And in the USA, absent a drought, we have food in abundance. We can always eat and build a rocket if we want too even when we realize that wealth isn't actually stored by 0s in the engineers bank account.

[burntorangebongos 10809]

32 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Right. We can eat, have a roof over our heads, and build rockets. Don't need money for any of them. Fiat money is about that rocket engineer trading his service through 100 different people trading services so that the farmer will trade him food.

And it works perfectly as a current bartering tool. Our problem is that we primarily use it to store value long term. No guarantees there.  Use Tide instead. Its always gonna be tradeable for a meal. And in the USA, absent a drought, we have food in abundance. We can always eat and build a rocket if we want too even when we realize that wealth isn't actually stored by 0s in the engineers bank account.

You are trying to tell a story but only managed incoherent gibberish. Too bad because it might be insightful. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

You are trying to tell a story but only managed incoherent gibberish. Too bad because it might be insightful. 

Not a story at all. Money need not be a future store of value. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Double post

[Anastasis 23699]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Fiat money is about that rocket engineer trading his service through 100 different people trading services so that the farmer will trade him food.

wut?

[RDCanecutter 26853]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:47 PM, Anastasis said:

wut?

Nothing wrong with Confederate money so long as the other guys take Confederate money. And on this planet it's all Confederate money (and turtles) all the way down since, uh, 1971 more or less.

The above is not exactly fair to Confederate money. Confederate money wanted to get turned back into gold within 2 years of a treaty. Confederate money wanted to do right. Little Mac just didn't campaign hard enough for US President.

[Zavala 1384]

On 10/9/2018 at 1:22 PM, SubliminalHorn said:

The sun is definitely setting on our American superpower status. Trumpkins wanted us to trash our institutions and cede our standing to China. So, there you have. Elections have consequences  thanks, trumpkins. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-tops-revised-competiveness-ranking-for-1st-time-since-08/2018/10/16/d3b43eac-d18f-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story.html?utm_term=.d53242ad21ce

US tops revised competiveness ranking for 1st time since ‘08

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

On 10/12/2018 at 3:13 PM, RDCanecutter said:

Nothing wrong with Confederate money so long as the other guys take Confederate money. And on this planet it's all Confederate money (and turtles) all the way down since, uh, 1971 more or less.

The above is not exactly fair to Confederate money. Confederate money wanted to get turned back into gold within 2 years of a treaty. Confederate money wanted to do right. Little Mac just didn't campaign hard enough for US President.

Around 1980, when I was ten, I inherited some of the last Confederate banknotes my Mississippi great-grandfather passed down to the ages. 

He had been a field hand and then a slave overseer. By the time the war came he was the owner of a tan yard. 

He had his son take down a memoir -- he was illiterate --  shortly before his death in Texas in 1892. "In 1858 by economy I had saved about $1,250 in gold, and bought an old Negro with the money. This was lost in 1861. I bought his wife also, for $1500, paying down $1,000, and $500 to be paid on the ratification of the independence of the Confederacy, which is not yet due."

"At the close of the war I had on hand about $10,000 in Confederate money, which was a total loss."

So some of that came down to my greedy little ten-year-old fingers, via his son and his son and then my uncle. Within a few weeks exposure to Houston sunshine and humidity, it literally crumbled into dust. Gone with the wind, indeed. 

[RDCanecutter 26853]

It's a shame. If your folks had sold it to a currency dealer instead of letting an idiot man-child paw at it, by that time it was probably worth its value in US$ again.

We've got $60 stashed somewhere. I always assumed it had become worth less than the paper it was printed on, as the saying goes. Turns out, as bogus devalued currency goes, Confederate money was not all that bad. It went down but sometimes went up, too, not always in sync with battlefield results. I read somewhere that on the eve of Lee's surrender, CS$ were still trading about 70 to 1 with US$. This is on the theory that you could find something to buy, I imagine haggling was the norm. Anyway, not that you could find gold for sale, but that would have made gold cost about 1400 CS$/oz at that time.

Gold is about 1200 US$/oz right now. So I guess until the ink was dry on the treaties, there was a fair chance that the $60 Confederate in our drawer was worth almost the same amount US right now. (Comparing apples to allen wrenches.)

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Got a few hundred dollars in rebel script. It really depends on the note if it's got any value  Some are worth thousands others are  only worth about a buck three eighty- five...