
The Decline and Fall of the American Empire (2010) - _of
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire/
======
dasil003
The ridiculous thing is that there's _no reason_ America has to be in decline
right now except hubris. The idea that military superiority is the end-all-be-
all of power, the idea that every American deserves to be richer than than the
average Chinese, etc. We still have amazing natural resources and an amazing
entrepreneurial can-do cultural attitude.

The problem is too many resources devoted to skimming the cream at the top of
the economy, decade after decade of ill-advised military waste, too much easy
money in finance, too gullible of a pacified electorate ready and willing to
vote against their interests at the siren song of two parties who claim to
represent their values, but spend 95% of their time fundraising and earning it
from the private interests who expect their ear.

If as a country we got back to the basics of hard work and innovation and
spent less time hand-wringing over our safety and global dominance, and making
sure that the GDP is growing at all costs, then I think we'd be well
positioned for the coming centuries of increased parity between countries.
Insistence that we have to maintain the post-WWII imbalance that America
enjoyed due entirely to a accidental confluence of events is foolhardy and
will lead to bad decisions.

~~~
memracom
Empire is built on the back of military power and political influence.
America's military power is in decline, but more importantly, its political
influence is tanking. So the end of empire is here.

At this point it looks like Russia will be the next imperial world power
although they are certainly doing it differently than other empires of the
past. The Euro-Asian Union is likely to officially hold the crown but as we
all know, the size of Russia will mean that it dominates in that Union.

Of course, that empire too will run its course and I wonder if humanity can
continue on the road paved by Russia. First, it was the Russian people who
ended the Soviet Union and that was a remarkably peaceful event because
Russians actually don't like wars. Next, the way that they are building the
EAU as a partnership based on the model of the EU holds out some hope that it
will be an empire that is less willing to throw its weight around globally.
And finally, there has to be an end to empire. We humans have to learn how to
share this planet under a different covenant than the one given to us by
history. The EU is an example that all countries need to emulate, not by
expanding the EU but by applying the EU principles in a broader more global
way so that countries are no longer sovereign, but are subject to some sort of
regional federation which mediates political and social affairs within and
without the countries in the region.

~~~
treenyc
I am not big fan of US imperialism. However, if one examine the facts, it is
unlikely that China and Russia/Europe will be the dominant force anytime soon.
US still can dominates EVERYTHING if they really wanted to with their
military, political and economic power.

If you read

The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century

Jim Norman

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Oil-Card-Economic-
Warfare/dp/09777...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Oil-Card-Economic-
Warfare/dp/097779539X)

A high oil price checkmates China (with its large population) but puts money
in Putin’s coffers. Going back to the cold war one will see the fall of Soviet
Union is engineered by suppression of Oil Prices during the cold war. After
1989 the Soviet reexamine, they agrees that it is cheap oil price that
checkmated them.

The trick now has a lot to do with strategy and game theory. I find that to be
a bit depressing. As Dave Logan who wrote Tribal Leadership says:

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast."

It would be nice to see the countries foster a kind of culture that will
generate wealth for all, instead of devising game theory and strategy to out
compete each other or different corporate factions.

Healthy competition is a great instrument on small individual scale, it is
idiosyncratic/inefficient on the country scale.

------
bksenior
While I cant say whether this it right or wrong, I find these are articles to
be extremely rigid in their determining facts. Just like in the professional
world there is a massive difference between becoming an industry player and an
extremely dominant company. Through a tech lense, just because snapchat is
growing faster than facebook, does not make snapchat Facebook in 2020. The
underscoring of the civil growing pains of wealth inequity, western influence
amongst consumption, civil unrest and basic quality of life problems (India
and China) are never taken into account. Its always, their economy is
expanding so given enough time they will win.

In a worse case scenario I see a melding of eastern and western ideals set up
against a terrible widening of the wealth inequity. The big sharp edge of a
connected economy is that people with power and information asyemtry can now
use global communication to economically conquer areas much larger than their
immediate reach (list it used to be). The more likely scenario here is a world
reset, than a post-American future.

------
everyone
This article does not mention climate change, salinization, loss of glaciers
(to feed rivers) contamination of soil and groundwater (from mining or maybe
all the fracking the US has been doing) over-irrigation. These and others are
real threats the US faces and will result in reduced fresh water and food.

~~~
mark-r
There's no reason to believe these factors will affect the US to a greater
degree than any other nation.

------
programminggeek
One reason we are in decline is that for better or worse, our own people are a
bit too mercenary for our own good. We have built giant multi-billion dollar
corporations, which in theory should make us incredibly more wealthy and
powerful, but they are no longer American companies, they are global entities
that operate in a multitude of countries.

The jobs and profit don't necessarily stay in the USA either. In many cases
the best place to hire workers or produce goods or services is not the USA.
There are thousands or millions of talented people elsewhere who can do it
better for cheaper and the profit that happens off of the difference is not
going to come back to the USA.

If you think in terms of the "global" economy, there is no particular reason
why the USA would have to stay #1 forever. Without significant effort, it is
almost impossible to imagine how America stays on top for the same reasons
that it is hard to believe that either Portugal or Great Britain could
maintain such large empires from such tiny countries with limited resources.

I don't think USA goes from #1 to #50 overnight, but dropping to #3 or #5
seems plausible.

------
snowwrestler
The article is giving me a 502, so I'll just say this:

I think the American decline is a lot like the iPad market share.

Most nations today are peaceful market economies who believe in individual
rights and trading internationally. As a result, the U.S. is becoming less
"indispensable". Is that something to fear, lament...or to celebrate?

As a U.S. citizen I'm bullish on the future.

~~~
twoodfin
No kidding. I dream of a world economy that has grown such that the median
Chinese or Indian citizen can enjoy the lifestyle of the median American or
Swede today. I don't think people can conceive of the magic that kind of
productive bounty would represent.

~~~
amagumori
genuinely curious here, why would a bigger economy mean a better quality of
life for regular citizens? who's to say the wealth wouldn't be all
concentrated in one area of society? as far as i've understood it, in free
market capitalism, companies increase their profits by cutting their marginal
costs (like worker's wages)

~~~
Tloewald
The basic tenet of free market economics is that people engage in transactions
voluntarily and with good information. GDP is a crude measure of all the
transactions that take place in an economy, and from the preceding tenet each
transaction makes both parties happier (or why would they take part?). It
follows that happiness monotonically increases with economic activity.

In theory.

In practice it works pretty well. The happiness isn't evenly distributed, to
be sure, but despite all the stuff you've heard about globalization, Monsanto,
the rich getting richer, etc. go look at Hans Rosling's presentations and
you'll see that everyone is getting better off as economies grow.

The big gripe about jobs being exported overseas is kind of racist. At bottom
it says that an American should get a job instead of a better qualified or
cheaper foreigner. Why? Is it not OK to look for the best deal you can get?
Now, the fact that capital can cross borders and people can't is the real
problem. But the same people who want to keep jobs at home also want to close
borders to people.

~~~
amagumori
hmm. i agree about the subtle racism of the job-exporting argument. well not
that the argument itself is racist, but that it goes hand in hand with
xenophobia.

the core problem though is that free trade has created a race to the bottom
where american workers' wages will have to drop to meet those of malaysian /
mexican / chinese / taiwanese workers, who have a pretty terrible quality of
life. we are competing with countries with ingrained caste systems in their
cultures, countries that completely accept treating some people like dirt.

the basic tenet of real life is that people have to get jobs to survive, it's
not a voluntary choice. yes, the transaction of paying a sweatshop worker
$1/day for stapling fabric to a chair will make that worker happier than he
would be with $0, but one party is clearly coming out much better in this
scenario. when the best deal you can get is based on exploiting a human being,
imo, it is not OK to look for the best deal you can get. not moral, at least.
we can have capitalism, a robust economy for business, and treat workers
ethically as well.

------
dangrossman
Note: Published December 5, 2010.

~~~
Zigurd
Well then, since Obama has steered the ship of state in an entirely different
direction for the past 5 years, we should be OK by now. /s

~~~
narrator
I'd say a key turning point was just a few months ago when Obama backed down
on attacking Syria. It was surreal.

------
mynameishere
Most empires end through overreach. The tiny nuggets at the center of the
Roman, Mongol, Ottoman, British, Austrian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German
and Japanese empires couldn't maintain the many nationalities they lorded
over. So they collapsed. The Soviets lasted a long time, despite their
worthless, murderous government, simply because the Russians had a huge core
in the center.

The American empire received its death blow in 1965. The barbarians were not
at the gates. There were no gates. The barbarians were invited, by the
millions and millions, from hundreds or thousands of miles away, at the
bequest of the American elites, to conquer a continent at no risk to
themselves. That is what historians--probably Chinese historians--will write
about decades from now about America...in mystified, contemptuous marvel at
American stupidity.

~~~
eugenejen
the sad thing is that you have such weak confidence in U.S.A.'s capability to
assimilating immigrants.

Of course I admit it is harder to assimilate Muslims. But East Asians? East
Asians are probably more white than white in accepting U.S.A value system.

~~~
__--__
That's because they were assimilated before the age of PC and
multiculturalism. We used to insist that immigrants adopt the same culture and
values that we have. Now, we encourage those people to recreate their own
cultures here, only better.

------
gremlinsinc
Yes, America will decline, yet it'll survive, the only thing that will ever
Kill America, is the unrest of it's people, and as long as consumerism keeps
everyone complacent and enslaved, people won't rise up, to enact any real
change.

It's a fact that short of nuclear war(global suicide), nobody can
invade/destroy America militarily, but our presence worldwide, will, and
SHOULD end. We need to go back to being neutral and not giving a shit about
world affairs, -- people in America are starving, yet we spend trillions to
police other countries. -- Some protectionism, and pull-back on military
spending would make for a stronger, more private America.

Personally, I'm all for a contracting America, that stops worrying about
global affairs, and worries more about feeding, clothing, and putting everyone
to work, and combatting poverty at home.

We have real problems here in America such as : A failing war on drugs,
Healthcare issues, Education, NSA/Security scandals, Poverty/Unemployment,
Securing our borders/ports of entry, Mental Health(school shootings, etc..),
Bloated government spending -- gov't should not be allowed to spend more than
they bring in via taxes, period - end of discussion.

I say AMEN to the end of America's world domination, and Hello to the era of
"let's take care of our own".

------
gaadd33
> Between 1973 and 2007, oil imports have risen from 36% of energy consumed in
> the U.S. to 66%.

It's interesting they didn't cite figures from 2007 to 2013 yet they link to
them. From their EIA link, it appears we import about as many barrels per
month as we did in 1973.

~~~
erichocean
It's an inconvenient truth. The oil boom in this country over the last 6 years
seems to go mostly unnoticed by the media, except for the odd article here and
there about housing shortages. (Way to find the "problem", media!)

I guess the oil boom doesn't advance the narrative that everything is going
wrong for the blue collar workers in the US, that we're completely dependent
on foreign oil, that we're not making "good jobs" anymore for people without a
college education, etc.

I'm really curious how long it will take for the culture to come around on
this one.

~~~
mark-r
The oil boom is real and welcome, and wasn't at all obvious when the article
was written in 2010. Unfortunately it only postpones the day of reckoning.
We're still dependent on foreign oil, just less so than predicted. Our economy
is almost entirely dependent on the amount of oil we can consume.

------
Zigurd
I'm shocked that CBS would publish such a sober and realistic assessment of
how damaging the wars of the past decade have been, and how horrifying the end
of the petrodollar will be.

------
imack
War will not happen between the US and China (2 economies which are inexorably
intertwined) for no other reason than it will be exceedingly bad for business.

~~~
michaelochurch
_War will not happen between the US and China (2 economies which are
inexorably intertwined) for no other reason than it will be exceedingly bad
for business._

One could have said this about the U.S. and Germany in 1927.

I don't think war between the U.S. and China is likely, and I certainly hope
it would never happen because no one would win that, but I don't think that
argument has historic validity.

~~~
jf22
>One could have said this about the U.S. and Germany in 1927.

Source?

I read about history sometimes and am a big fan of WW2.

I've never heard Germany and the US being "inexorably intertwined" and find
the comparison to China/US almost preposterous given the modern global economy
and the feeder/lecher relationships we have now.

~~~
userulluipeste
German was(/still-is) the biggest community in USA:

"They comprise about 50 million people, making them the largest ancestry group
ahead of Irish Americans, African Americans and English Americans."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American)

------
belluchan
People act like their self-identity were dependent on everlasting American
super-hegemony. Then trolls like this author come around and push your buttons
to make themselves feel important. This author and his stories of futuristic
lethal space robot battles mean what to whom? We're all going to be killed by
China's space lasers and there's nothing to be done of it? Ok great thanks.
Not being #1 means absolutely nothing to me. Lots of fine countries in this
world do just fine not being #1.

------
michaelochurch
No one can predict the future, and this is sensationalism and speculation, not
reasoned journalism.

Let's talk about the "fall" of the UK. The British have universal healthcare
and London is a leading global city. The biggest things that can be said for
bad about the UK are (1) that London is extremely expensive, and (2) that the
weather sucks. (1) is true but hardly seems to have anything to do with global
decline; (2) is easy enough to deal with when you have $50 airfares to Spain
and Italy and 5 weeks of vacation required by law.

So... is that what "decline" looks like? It doesn't sound so bad.

The UK certainly did have a period of economic privation that was longer than
ours. Ours fit neatly between a stock market crash (1929) and the end of a war
(1945) while theirs lingered on for about 15 years longer. That wasn't because
the British Empire fell. That was because Britain got thoroughly devastated by
Nazi bombing, while we lost one military base in Hawaii. Even the countries
that "won" World Wars I and II mostly lost, economically speaking.

Sure, the American Empire is toast. It's already fading in importance, and the
economic and cultural malaise that OP argues come along with imperial collapse
are already happening. In fact, the pattern of ignominious military
misadventure didn't start in 2003 with Iraq; the war in Vietnam was worse.
Does this mean that we're headed for economic collapse or World War III? No.
Sure, those things could happen. I don't see them as especially likely.

The American Empire is unwinding because nation-states themselves are becoming
less relevant. The global elite (which includes many highly wealthy Americans,
but has no allegiance to any specific country or ideology) has pushed aside
the national elites. They don't matter anymore, except for ceremonial
purposes. The rise of the global elite (the WEF fuckheads) isn't a good thing.
For all of its flaws, the WASP aristocracy was a hell of a lot more virtuous
and pro-democratic (and, more to the point, it gave a shit what happened to
the U.S.) than the new elite of Russian blatnoy-oligarchs and the oil sheikhs
from countries where it's legal to fuck a 9-year-old (if you're married to
her). Where this global elite is headed, and what the rest of us in the 99.99%
will have to do with or to them is another discussion, and I don't care to
have it...

This idea that the U.S. is destined for economic ruin, however, has no basis.
Sure, there are some nasty problems we're going to face, nationally and
globally. But there has never been a time in history when that wasn't the
case.

~~~
sologoub
Here's an article from 1995 titled "Japan May Still Surpass U.s. To Become
Leading Economic Power By The Year
2000":[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/95041...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-10/business/9504100029_1_eamonn-
fingleton-japan-yen)

While the overall trajectory maybe right, the comparisons between the likes of
USSR is really incorrect. The actual "fall" of the USSR came at the
dissolution of the lands conquered by the old Russian Empire. The tensions
driving that, besides obvious greed for money and power, were that those
pieces weren't always together to begin with. Russia, Belarus and most of
Ukraine were, but much of the rest was absorbed through violence. Even today,
Ukraine's west and east are at odds with each other - one part wanting to come
back to Russia and the other wanting to go back to Poland/Europe.

The military strength is likely to depend a lot more on unmanned machinery in
the next few decades rather than on human soldiers. If true, that would erode
much of the advantage China and India hold from the sheer numbers stand point.

Economically, China may very well develop to be #1. That said, they do have a
long road ahead of them in terms of really sustaining their own buying
behaviors. Currently, US is #1 through much of its own consumption. This is a
very remarkable feat. The extremely robust domestic market is not something
most other countries can really boast. Currently, both India and China need
others to consume a very large share of what they produce. While I'm not
really sure of all the measures McKinsey analysts are using here, it is a good
illustration of just how much China still depends on exports:
[http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_pictu...](http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/globalization/a_truer_picture_of_chinas_export_machine)

The article does note a shift to more finished goods export and focus on the
internal market, it is far from a complete process. Incidentally, these shifts
and the strengthening of the middle class that seems so vital, will also
likely bring about more political unrest.

India is likely to experience social issues as the population gets wealthier,
as shown by the recent debacle with the Indian diplomat and her house
servant...

~~~
memracom
China's biggest challenge is ecology and with that, natural resources. It is a
mountainous country with human habitation mostly in narrow valleys except for
a few large river valleys and deltas. And it has too many people. This is
likely to lead to ecological collapse in one way or another. One way to stave
that off would be to subordinate themselves to Russia so that Russia provides
raw materials and therefore China doesn't have to dig up so many mountains,
but that doesn't solve all the ecological issues.

~~~
sologoub
Eh... more likely China and Russia will end up going to war over Siberian
resources. Russia has a huge Chinese immigration problem on their hands and
China has provoked skirmishes even in Soviet times:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
Soviet_border_conflict](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
Soviet_border_conflict)

------
notastartup
This is my opinion. The world is built on American financial institutions such
as World Bank, World Trade Organization. These entities ensure American
dominance when it comes to economic power. China maybe taking the 2nd spot,
but that's where it ends. The stage is always rigged so that United States
prevails. The rules change in favor of United States, at the whim of it's
administration.

Then comes the military power. No other country has had as much experience as
the united states. Air superiority still remains to be the most essential
battlefield in any war. Those who control the skies determine where their
territories end. The United States by far has a great deal of experience in
this field and it's spending on military hardware eclipses the entire world by
many times.

The perfect empire is the one we can't see, and that is the empire of US
dollar. As long as we depend on oil for energy output, so will the world's
dependence on American dollar.

~~~
belluchan
> The world is built on American financial institutions such as World Bank,
> World Trade Organization.

Those are not American financial institutions. The World Bank is an
international organization and the WTO's headquarters are in Switzerland.

~~~
icegreentea
Nominally true.

But at least the World Bank is blatantly pro-American. Every World Bank
president has been American. The Chief Economist up to 2000 are all pretty
much American (one Israeli + one dual Israeli/American).

