

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire - serverdude
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/05/opinion/main7121029.shtml
Interesting article. The current selfish and misguided crop of politicians and the declining economy (and prospects) lead me to believe there is some truth to what this article states.
======
vorg
It seems we're at a crux in history and the world can go one of two ways,
depending on what America does:

1\. The US becomes a half-Western half-Asian nation and remains No.1, with
Europe/Russia and China/Asia a distant 2nd equal.

2\. The US slowly federates with Europe (and maybe also Russia), retaining its
primarily Western culture. The Europe/USA bloc and China each have equal
influence in the world.

(1) The first would happen through mass immigration...

> Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are now
> foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once
> would have happened

That's mainly because of the US government rules. Australia has more relaxed
rules and thus the international students stay. The US can change the rules
anytime it's expedient. The lessons from Canada, Australia, and NZ is that
eventually the people vote for whatever makes the house prices and rents go
back up. International students and immigrants make incomes from residential
property go up, both rent income and resale gains. Asians, mainly NE Asians,
have the most money, and many want to live in a Western country if they can.
If their children speak American English, then they're Americans.

The USA, like Canada, Australia and South America, is based on immigration. If
the US let in millions of educated and/or wealthy Chinese, they would come and
stay _for the same reasons_ Europeans came to America a century and more ago.
Ditto Indians, Koreans, Japanese, Thais. The individuality of their home
countries won't change, even in nominally "democratic" countries like Japan,
which is just a veneer over a very entrenched hierarchical society many young
people would escape if they could.

The US has a good food and water supply and can easily accept many millions
more immigrants. The Mississippi basin is the largest food growing area on the
planet, which is how it rose to global power in the first place. Other food
supplies, e.g. Yangtze and Ganges, feed many times the 300 million the
Mississippi feeds.

If half of America's citizens in 2030 weren't born there, America would still
be "No.1".

(2) The alternative is an international federation...

The US is a federation. Other Western countries became federations because of
the US example, e.g. Switzerland in 1860, Canada in 1880's, Australia in 1901,
Germany in 1948. With the EU, countries with different languages have half-
formed a federation. France and Germany may soon coordinate their fiscal and
tax policies, strengthening the federation.

As the US declines, it can surrender aspects of its sovereignty to a similar
international federation made up of other Western countries with similar
values. Perhaps it'll form a union with other majority English speaking
countries UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ. It's already united to them under the
UKUSA security and ABCA defense treaties. Perhaps it'll surrender sovereignty
to an enhanced NAFTA, sharing a common border with Canada and/or Mexico. 130
million Mexicans suddenly entering the US labor market under a shared labor
market would boost the economy massively. Or maybe the US and EU will form a
progressively closer union over the next 50 years. If Russia joins, that's 1
billion people, centered around the Arctic, with far more land and resources
than China, and especially India.

But the U.S. would be the biggest member of whatever bloc it joins, whether
Nafta, European countries, English-speaking countries, or even eventually all
three. It would therefore would have the most influence. Because Brazil is the
largest country in South America, it can indirectly control the entire
continent because the remaining people there who speak the other language are
divided into various "countries". In the same way the US could have the most
influence in any union it forms.

If "America" is defined as the constitution, the Immigration alternative
preserves America better. If "America" is defined as a Western culture, the
"Federation" alternative preserves America better. Perhaps both options (or
neither option) will play out for a while, but sooner or later one of them
will tip the future direction of America's future role in the world, and no-
one will know until much later. But there are other options not mention in the
article...

The US President and/or Congress could declare the homeland territory to be a
"battleground", thus enabling the military to "buy" (annex?) large areas of US
territory for military purposes, transfering their jurisdiction away from the
Supreme Court. Perhaps half of US territory could become a live-in "military
base". Freed from the restrictions of democracy and free speech, the military
could set up commercial/industrial zones with controls similar to China's,
thus competing on a more equal footing with China.

~~~
serverdude
Thanx for the very detailed and interesting analysis. Part of what would
determine US global leadership is how fast it adapts to the changing world
order and accepts the facts instead of hanging on to the past world where it
was dominant by a huge distance. This is not going to be easy though.

------
nate_meurer
I found the historical insights interesting -- the military misadventures of
dying empires in particular. But his energy analysis is a tad obtuse, and the
cyberwarfare scenario was nearly comedy. You can tell this person is an
historian.

I'm also uncomfortable with the way people talk about China sometimes; they're
clearly the new USSR in the minds of some Americans, and I question whether
that is warranted. China may well be a problem in many ways, but China also
_has_ big problems.

I personally believe that China's biggest problem is the same as that of the
rest of the world: the decline of cheap primary energy (peak-cheap-oil comes
first), and the decline of economic growth that will inevitably come with it.
It will hurt everybody, not just the americans.

------
bradleyland
I have no doubt that: In 25 years, we will be able to look back and review
commentary that seems to have foretold our current circumstance with almost
mystical accuracy.

I have tremendous doubt that: We can sift through the current commentary and
find the speaker who is correct about our future 25 years from now.

Looking in to the future is incredibly difficult because humans have the
capacity to change course. Who predicted the string of revolutions that
occurred in the Middle East this year? I'm sure someone did, but it wasn't the
subject of national discourse. At least not in the mainstream media.

I don't question that historically, all empires have met their end, but it is
unwise to let someone else dictate your future by writing in a journal.

------
mmx
Congress has a 9% approval rating, so why won't this change? Because people
hate Congress, but they like their Congressman. We need an education
revolution in this country and the Internet is the rail for that train, but
with issues like SOPA we have the wrong people trying to play conductor.

~~~
akkartik
I am _fascinated_ that this thread has repeated mentions of Congress. See my
response at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3396655>

------
atarian
My friend and I have talked about this and what we would do if domestic unrest
would occur in America. My friend argued it'd be wise to move to a country
nobody really knows or cares about. I thought it'd be better to move to a more
modernized country.

------
serverdude
I think the most important set of folks that should receive their share of
blame is folks who voted the current crop of congressmen. I really feel that
we should have a "how to choose whom to vote for" as part of core curriculum
:)

~~~
akkartik
It's _utterly_ irrelevant who you vote for if the incentives are out of
kilter.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA>

~~~
serverdude
I think there is some truth to what you say - but to say that it is "utterly
irrelevant" who you vote is a bit of hyperbole. In a democracy voting
ultimately decides who gets into power and what the policies would be.

~~~
akkartik
I'm going to stand by my statement. Please watch that video I shared. Yes they
can effect small changes but Congress is so captured by a few interests that
you can't stay within the confines of its day-to-day activities and change the
long-term trajectory. And the long-term trajectory _alone_ matters. Who cares
about swipe fees or any other such persnickety nonsense if the underlying rot
is ignored? It doesn't matter who you vote in, you won't be able to change
Congress's reliance on funding without doing something radical. And if you
can't do _that_ , anything else is utterly irrelevant.

~~~
serverdude
Sure, I watched the video. Thanks - it was a nice, instructive video.

All I am saying is that your statement is a "bit of hyperbole". Things are
_never_ black and white when we are talking about such complicated topics. As
an example, according to your statement, it would not have mattered if someone
else had been elected instead of Bush. Whereas I think it is highly likely
that Iraq war (for better or worse) would not have happened if Bush had not
been elected.

~~~
akkartik
But bush != congress.

Perhaps you're reading more hyperbole than I'm putting in :)

~~~
serverdude
Sure that certainly is one way of looking at it. When I said Bush - I did not
mean literally Bush. I think we both made our points - so I give it a rest :)

~~~
akkartik
Yeah. Just to clarify:

a) I'm claiming Congress is utterly irrelevant as it is today without outside
intervention.

b) There's lots of dysfunction to go around, but I never meant to make blanket
claims about anything but congress.

You're quite possibly right that my indignation is fresh and excessive after
watching that talk :)

