2040: US is #3 Economically, #1 Militarily. What happens?

[Zulu Elephant]

Why not? we spent decades trying our hardest to AVOID global power (regional power in the Carib was something else again) We stayed out of euro politics pre-WW1, stayed out of WW1 till near the end, stayed out of the League, tried to hide behind the pacifist idealism of Kellog-Briand, and then tried to hide behind neutrality acts. Even after WW2 there was reluctance on some parts to stay involved in Europe. And again in the 70s, with the Mansfield amendments, there were attempts to withdraw from Europe. (I will try to avoid a local flameware about a particular part of ex-Yugo - but lets just say that US isolationism was alive and well in US discussions on that)

Assuming there is SOMEONE who will rise to power (be it another great power, the UN, or just the diffused unconquerable globe) who is as friendly to US interests as the UK was from 1890 to 1945, you should see the US happily turning inward.

Fair point. But I do think that post-WW2 America is a very different entity that pre-WW2 America. With the minor hiccup in the 70s (caused by Vietnam) there has been a "We're number 1! We're number 1!" attitude amongst at least a large part of America.

The whole "Reagan made us feel good about ourselves again" thing was very much about giving Americans that "We're number 1!" feel back after Vietnem - something a lot of Americans obviously wanted back.

The US has been in relative decline since World War II. The US is some 22% of the world economy and falling.

That trend could change, of course, even though I don't foresee it.

I meant the point at which the relative decline allows other states to perminantly overtake the US economically and militarily.

[DanS]

I meant the point at which the relative decline allows other states to perminantly overtake the US economically and militarily.

This isn't a given. While you can create a scenario following current trends where China or India overtakes the US sooner or later, there is a good chance that the US will continue being the king of the hill. Current trends do not suggest that the EU will overtake the US, although they're so close anyways that it wouldn't surprise me if it happened based upon temporary factors.

[Zulu Elephant]

This isn't a given. While you can create a scenario following current trends where China and the EU overtake the US sooner or later, there is a good chance that the US will continue being the king of the hill.

It may not happen for a long time but Im sure you dont think that the US, with a population of a third of India or China and substantially smaller than many other fast-growing nations, can remain on top economically forever anymore than Britain could. Surely its a given in the long term.

[Kidlicious]

I think he means that the peak of US power relative to the rest of the world occured after WWII. It's been declining ever since. We don't care if other nations do well, as long as they aren't our enemies.

[DanS]

It may not happen for a long time but Im sure you dont think that the US, with a population of a third of India or China and substantially smaller than many other fast-growing nations, can remain on top economically forever anymore than Britain could. Surely its a given in the long term.

No, it's not a given by a long shot. The US population is already growing a lot faster than China's. And India's economy is well behind that of China and is growing slower.

We don't care if other nations do well, as long as they aren't our enemies.

Or, more accurately, we want everybody but our enemies to do well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


Fair point. But I do think that post-WW2 America is a very different entity that pre-WW2 America. With the minor hiccup in the 70s (caused by Vietnam) there has been a "We're number 1! We're number 1!" attitude amongst at least a large part of America.

The whole "Reagan made us feel good about ourselves again" thing was very much about giving Americans that "We're number 1!" feel back after Vietnem - something a lot of Americans obviously wanted back.

post ww2 it took Communism, which fortunately scared the Bejeezus out of just those sectors of US society most inclined to isolationism, to get the US involved with the world. Even as it was, global strategy was an elite thing - Cuba, which is in our "near abroad" was (and amazingly, remains) a MUCH hotter button for populist anticommunism than anything happening "over there". 1980 was an odd point - it wasnt so much over VN - our reaction to VN was to elect Jimmy Carter. It was a reaction to the specific humiliation of Iran (calling us Satan really DOES get our goat) to the reminder that the cold war was still in effect, and to economic frustration as well, - and to Jimmy Carters style, which was too negative (age of malaise) and too seemingly effeminate. Reagan withdrew US troops from Lebanon - nobody made to much fuss about that, cause he was "tall in the saddle". He was aggressive in Central Am, but thats the "near abroad" - a hot button for the kind of folks who never understood why Clinton wanted to expand NATO, forex. In the '90s the US was divided into Clintonistas who wanted a multilateral approach to systemic world issues - a good transition to managing the world during our decline, one might say - and more or less bristly isolationists on both left and right. The PNAC folks wrote interesting stuff, but had little constituency. (Which BTW, is why its laughable when they blame Clinton for NOT invading Afghanistan in 1998 - there was no constituency for that)

Yah it looks different since the 11 September. I still think most non-Americans dont quite get how huge a thing that was over here. At least in terms of the US polity, the discontinuity is huge, and attempts to read post 9/11 thinking back(apart again from a handul of thnkers), assuming a continuity, miss the reality.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by DanS


No, it's not a given by a long shot. The US population is already growing a lot faster than China's. And India's economy is well behind that of China and is growing slower.

I have to say that I think you're underestimating China and overestimating the US. That said, I think everyone is overestimating the EU too.

And I dont think that the US population, no matter how fast it grows is going to close the gap with China to any meaningful extent for a very long time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


I have to say that I think you're underestimating China and overestimating the US. That said, I think everyone is overestimating the EU too.

And I dont think that the US population, no matter how fast it grows is going to close the gap with China to any meaningful extent for a very long time.

it is interesting that isolationist paleocons tend to be antiimmigration, while "american greatness" neocons tend to be proimmigration. Largely on economic grounds in both instances, but one could see a scenario where US decline had raised that to a key issue.

[DanS]

I have to say that I think you're underestimating China and overestimating the US.

I didn't estimate, so it's impossible to say that I'm overestimating. If we follow current trends, China's economy will surpass that of the US pretty soon. But those trends aren't a given and the out years (2050-2100) don't seem to favor the Chinese.

[Kidlicious]

Zulu Elephant,

China's economy isn't going to grow at the same rate. It's already growing too fast, so they are taking measures to slow it down. The economy is sure to face bottlenecks in the future one of which will be lack of ports to expand trade. Transforming from an cheap labor export economy to an economy with an expanding domestic base isn't a sure thing. There's going to be ongoing problems. It's really not realistic to assume that China will grow at 9% a year indefinitely.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by DanS


I didn't estimate, so it's impossible to say that I'm overestimating. If we follow current trends, China's economy will surpass that of the US pretty soon. But those trends aren't a given and the out years (2050-2100) don't seem to favor the Chinese.

You estimated that "there is a good chance that the US will continue being the king of the hill" - I think there is a chance, but not a good chance.

As for the trends. If you just look and current growth rates and trends in the changes of growth rates then yes, i agree that these are nowhere near given. However if you look at other factors, such as the increasing Chinese economic activity/emerging dominance in South East Asia and the fact that Chinese students who previously studied abroad are now studying in China, there are signs of something much more substantial going on.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it is interesting that isolationist paleocons tend to be antiimmigration, while "american greatness" neocons tend to be proimmigration. Largely on economic grounds in both instances, but one could see a scenario where US decline had raised that to a key issue.

But how many conservatives are really proimmigration? Not very many I imagine. Neocons are really few and far between.

[DanS]

You estimated that "there is a good chance that the US will continue being the king of the hill" - I think there is a chance, but not a good chance.

I think that you're getting into semantics and are losing sight of the fact that we have no way of knowing if that chance is 10% or 50%. But the chance certainly isn't zero or negligible.

Nothing is inevitable in this world.

[Kontiki]

As for population growth, the US isn't expected to give up the number three spot for at least 70 years, so I wouldn't give that too much consideration at this point. Even then, the countries that might pass it aren't likely contenders for economic superpower status.

[Zulu Elephant]

post ww2 it took Communism, which fortunately scared the Bejeezus out of just those sectors of US society most inclined to isolationism, to get the US involved with the world. Even as it was, global strategy was an elite thing - Cuba, which is in our "near abroad" was (and amazingly, remains) a MUCH hotter button for populist anticommunism than anything happening "over there". 1980 was an odd point - it wasnt so much over VN - our reaction to VN was to elect Jimmy Carter. It was a reaction to the specific humiliation of Iran (calling us Satan really DOES get our goat) to the reminder that the cold war was still in effect, and to economic frustration as well, - and to Jimmy Carters style, which was too negative (age of malaise) and too seemingly effeminate. Reagan withdrew US troops from Lebanon - nobody made to much fuss about that, cause he was "tall in the saddle". He was aggressive in Central Am, but thats the "near abroad" - a hot button for the kind of folks who never understood why Clinton wanted to expand NATO, forex. In the '90s the US was divided into Clintonistas who wanted a multilateral approach to systemic world issues - a good transition to managing the world during our decline, one might say - and more or less bristly isolationists on both left and right. The PNAC folks wrote interesting stuff, but had little constituency. (Which BTW, is why its laughable when they blame Clinton for NOT invading Afghanistan in 1998 - there was no constituency for that)

Yah it looks different since the 11 September. I still think most non-Americans dont quite get how huge a thing that was over here. At least in terms of the US polity, the discontinuity is huge, and attempts to read post 9/11 thinking back(apart again from a handul of thnkers), assuming a continuity, miss the reality.

Its easy in the current climate to see/remember only the gung-ho side of America and forget the isolationist aspect. I suppose America simply turning in on itself is possibility.

However, in the whole post-ww2 period America was still number one militarility and economically, regardless of how and whether it chose to exercise its power.