The best point made in the article is that the danger to the United States comes from its track record of success:
"Mancur Olson . . . was prompted by what he thought was a strange paradox after World War II. Britain, having won the war, slipped into deep stagnation, while Germany, the loser, grew powerfully year after year. . . .
"Olson concluded that, paradoxically, it was success that hurt Britain, while failure helped Germany. British society grew comfortable, complacent and rigid, and its economic and political arrangements became ever more elaborate and costly, focused on distribution rather than growth. . . . The system became sclerotic, and over time, the economic engine of the world turned creaky and sluggish.
"Germany, by contrast, was almost entirely destroyed by World War II. That gave it a chance not just to rebuild its physical infrastructure but also to revise its antiquated arrangements and institutions . . . with a more modern frame of mind."
On the other hand, Britain is arguably not very far behind Germany even today, as Britain later had opportunities to learn from failure. Definitely a country that learns to embrace learning from failure (even the relative failure of not always being the best, while still being quite good by world standards) is a country that can keep making progress. I'm not counting out the United States yet as a country that can learn to do better, especially because the United States is still very receptive to immigrants from all over the world who feel an urgency about bettering their lives.
But unfortunately increasingly less so from the poorer countries.
What is the evidence for this? The United States has had high rates of legally approved immigration since 1964, second only to the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries in rate of immigration as a percentage of already arrived population.
Maybe it's my own biased opinion, but I am referring to the large bankroll you need to prove to INS that you will not become a ward of the state for Chinese, whereas I have heard Europeans and Canadians can come as the please.
Germany also has an incredible work ethic. Not only did they bounce back after WWII, they also did after WWI. At the conclusion of WWI, the allies effectively stripped Germany of it's factory infrastructure and imposed crippling repayments. Within 20 years Germany had again massed a military machine that took over Europe - overpowering their former opponents - and came close to taking Russia.
They've always valued quality and hard work, and it pays off for them. Right now they're the ones dragging the EU along by the ear.
Another factor is that much of the UK's economy was based on income from foreign lands, particularly India. Once that was gone (India achieved independence post WWII) a decline was inevitable.
Perhaps the secret sauce is having the guts to admit that significant changes need to be made and then act on them. Since the GFC, all the US administration has done is try to preserve "business as usual". There's been no real "stuff is really harsh, we need to take some serious measures here". I guess that covers that stagnation angle...
"Mancur Olson . . . was prompted by what he thought was a strange paradox after World War II. Britain, having won the war, slipped into deep stagnation, while Germany, the loser, grew powerfully year after year. . . .
"Olson concluded that, paradoxically, it was success that hurt Britain, while failure helped Germany. British society grew comfortable, complacent and rigid, and its economic and political arrangements became ever more elaborate and costly, focused on distribution rather than growth. . . . The system became sclerotic, and over time, the economic engine of the world turned creaky and sluggish.
"Germany, by contrast, was almost entirely destroyed by World War II. That gave it a chance not just to rebuild its physical infrastructure but also to revise its antiquated arrangements and institutions . . . with a more modern frame of mind."
On the other hand, Britain is arguably not very far behind Germany even today, as Britain later had opportunities to learn from failure. Definitely a country that learns to embrace learning from failure (even the relative failure of not always being the best, while still being quite good by world standards) is a country that can keep making progress. I'm not counting out the United States yet as a country that can learn to do better, especially because the United States is still very receptive to immigrants from all over the world who feel an urgency about bettering their lives.