The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    American Hegemony: What is it, Where is it going, and Who really cares anyway?

    There have been many sober pronouncements lately about the end American hegemony, both on this blog and elsewhere. Some have reacted with despondence, others with glee. It may be that the end is nigh--it has to end sometime--but we should keep in mind that the forecasters of doom emerge from their caves during every period of hardship. They were last seen in force in the 80's as American manufacturing foundered and Japan floated into the economic stratosphere on a very large bubble. The end-of-the-hegemony pessimists are the antimatter twins of the eternal-hegemony optimists who imagine that every stock market rally will last forever. Neither should be trusted.

    So let's take the measure of this hegemony thing: what is it, where is it going, and who really cares anyway?

    What Is It?

    The term hegemony comes from the Greek word for leadership. The Greeks first used it describe Sparta's political dominance of its neighboring Peloponnesian city-states. In modern times, the term may also denote social, cultural, ideological, and economic influence. A hegemony is distinct from an empire in that the leading nation extends its influence over other nations indirectly as opposed to governing them through appointed representatives and military occupation.

    The size and power of a hegemon is more ambiguous than that of an empire, since the extent of its influence cannot be measured by geography or population. Some perceive coordinated American influence in every geopolitical event. Others argue that the U.S. lacks the resources to effectively influence the world outside its borders and should not even be called a hegemon. Books have been written on the question; I plan to focus on the tangible elements: economy and military.

    Though it was long in ascendence, the U.S. emerged as a dominant force during WWII, as the economy exploded out of the Great Depression, and the military ballooned in size during the war. Our GDP was a full 35% of the global economy at its peak in 1945 (higher than that of the British Empire which, with all its colonies, peaked at 24% in 1870). At the same time, the British Empire splintered, and the European powers gradually lost their colonies, leaving the U.S. with far more resources and population than any other industrialized nation. Since the 1960s, our GDP has consistently made up from 20 to 25 percent of the global economy and still does today.

    After WWII, American maintained its military spending to counter the newly expansionist Soviet Union. For a time, the Soviets kept pace with the U.S. militarily but never came close in economic terms. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. was in its own league. Today, our military expenditures make up almost half of all the world's military spending. The next in line, China, spends around 8% of the global total and our former rival, Russia, spends under 5%.

    Where Is It Going?

    Those who predict the imminent demise of the American hegemony look to the unhealthy attributes of the U.S. economy--our low savings rate, the decline in our manufacturing base, the trade deficit, and our massive debt--and contrast it with China's incredible growth and vast population. They conclude that the U.S. economy will stagnate or decline as China surges past.

    This conclusion is likely correct but not in the timeframe its proponents envision. When economies "collapse," they don't literally disintegrate. Rather, they grow extremely slowly or shrink slightly. So even if we remain in a 10-year recession comparable to Japan's lost decade, our share of the global real GDP will still be over 20% ten years from now. And according to World Bank projections, our share of the global GDP will actually be 23% in 2030, while China's will still be 16%. Another blog has put together a table comparing the year at which China's GDP would overtake that of the U.S. under different growth assumptions:


    (It should be noted that these comparisons assume real values rather purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP compares domestic prices of goods and services, e.g. haircuts, rather than using current exchange rates. Among industrialized countries, relative PPP and real levels should be roughly equivalent, but there are greater disparities between industrialized and developing countries. For instance using PPP, China has the second largest economy in the world, almost twice as large as Japan's, because goods and services like haircuts are much cheaper in China. PPP is useful in comparing standards of living, but in terms of influence and political power, actual exchange rates are more appropriate, since they indicate international purchasing power. Other reasons for using exchange rates are offered here and here. The one caveat to using real numbers is that there is some evidence that the yuan is significantly undervalued, in which case China's share of the real global GDP could rise dramatically once it's allowed to float.)

    In terms of military expenditures, China is also growing at a much faster pace than the U.S., and its aggressively modernizing its armed forces. But while China has more soldiers, its equipment and infrastructure remains very inferior the U.S. military, and I see no evidence that they will displace American military preeminence in the next decade.

    The other factor to consider is that China's current growth rate may not be sustainable. As my co-blogger, Deadman, has argued with respect to our own economy, what goes up must come down. We saw a clear example of that principle in the case of Japan's economic implosion after years of rapid growth. With a much larger population and more resources, China's economy will soon outpace Japan's and eventually our own, but the road may yet be bumpy. I've also argued in a previous post that without political reforms, China's growth may stagnate as its government calcifies. Time will tell.

    Who Really Cares Anyway?

    Without whitewashing America's failings, from ill-conceived wars to sovereignty and human rights violations, or belittling the suffering caused by U.S. foreign policy, it's important to realize that things could be a lot worse. The Iraq War death count ranges from 100K to 1.5M depending on who you ask. The Vietnam War killed 1.7M people. The Korean War killed 2.8M. In contrast, WWI killed 15M, and WWII killed 55M. Stalin's regime is estimated to have killed 20M, and Mao Zedong's, 40M. Perhaps more significantly, the threat of nuclear annihilation dissipated significantly once the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the U.S. the world's preeminent power. For all our warring, the last twenty years has been a period of relative peace in the world, and while we should always strive for better, we should not take it for granted either. It could easily get worse.

    For instance, China's growth is likely to intensify competition with the U.S. and could lead to a new cold war, complete with proxy wars and another arms race. The latter is particularly likely if antimissile technology improves to the point that Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer guaranteed. Moreover, China could prove to be a much more destructive hegemon than the U.S. ever was. It's lack of democracy, abysmal human rights record, and willingness to work with the world's most criminal regimes should give pause to those who hope for the end of American hegemony.

    In other words, watch out what you wish for.

     

    Sources:

    End of the hegemony
    http://www.midasletter.com/commentary/090418-2_US-hegemony-the-beginning...
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0408/p09s01-coop.html
    http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hege...
    http://eufo.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-worry-about-china.html

    Economy
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
    http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/01/20/share-of-world-gdp/
    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/03/basics.htm
    http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/aug/23guest1.htm
    http://eufo.blogspot.com/2008/10/naked-and-ppp-gdp.html

    Military
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
    http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706sturr.html
    http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/modules/mod32/frameset.htm
    http://www.comw.org/pda/bmemo10.htm

    War
    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm

    Comments

    I hear you have to do some complicated steps to convert links to a click-able state...

    Where is the attention to detail on this blog?


    Too many links. I'm a lazy bastard.


    And to make things worse - you packaged this post so neatly that there are not many hand holds to grab and build/destroy with.

    You lazy, articulate bastard.


    Wow, footnotes! You're plumbing new depths, Genghis. My first instinct is to surrender before your massive marshaling of facts. Of course, I'll resist it.

    Can't quibble with your scene-setting: the U.S. emerged as an economic and military superpower between the wars, proved itself the pre-eminent one during and after WW II, and claimed the exclusive title with the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Then, just as some began to talk of an American empire, 9/11 reminded us how vulnerable even an economic/military superpower is to assymetric warfare. The quick apparent victory in Afghanistan masked that fact, but the Iraq War brought it home. There are limits to military power. Amazing that people had somehow forgotten that since Vietnam.

    Now we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: the States is still the sole military superpower, by far, but economically it's deeply indebted to its major emerging rival. At least for the foreseeable future, thankfully, China and the U.S. need each other. In fact, China's spectacular growth depends largely on access to American markets. So political accommodations will be found.

    To quote a favorite Monty Python skit: "I paid for an argument. This is not an argument!" "Oh yes, it is." OK, let me see ... Ah, I challenge your claim that U.S. hegemony has made the past 20 years "a period of relative peace." Yes, we didn't have another world war -- but how could we, absent another superpower to fight against? The wars we did fight were bloody enough.

    I'd also start the clock a bit earlier. Even before the Soviet Union collapsed, its military had been bogged down for a decade in Afghanistan, leaving the U.S. free to get deeply involved in the nearer Mideast. Starting with the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. heavily armed Saddam, followed by the Kuwait War, in which it disarmed him again, then (after the distractions of Somalia and Kosovo) on to the Global War on Terror (Afghan and Iraqi branches, with combat now spilling over into Pakistan). Add in the now-postponed war with Iran, and a pattern emerges that some Muslims will see as a clash of civilizations -- "a crusade," as George Bush once so awkwardly put it.

    No one fondly recalls 1918-1938 as two decades of peace, given the horrors they were building towards. Where we're headed right now isn't absolutely clear. If the West blunders into war with Iran, or helps tip nuclear-armed Pakistan into collapse, history won't be kind to the past two or three decades of U.S. policy. Still, I don't wish for an end to American power, just for its more judicious use. For the past 100 days, most signs have been promising.


    And you call this an argument? I spend hours scouring the internet for real GDP projections and pre-WWII military expenditures, and you deliver what, a quibble?

    I can barely muster a quibble with your quibble. I agree that the lack of a world war for the past 20 years is due to the lack of anyone to fight against. I raised the point not to demonstrate that the U.S. is a peace-lovin' hegemon but to note that once the U.S. has rivals, things might not be so peaceful. Heck, that's not even a quibble. It's a clarification.

    OK, it helps that the U.S. doesn't try to colonize third world countries or annex its moose-loving neighbors. Aw forget it. This is no fun. Where's Quinn?

    Maybe I'll post at TPM. There's sure to be some wacky troll to trifle with.


    I should have known you'd take that attitude. Look, I've had this nagging cold. And my team just got eliminated from the playoffs, so I drank too much last night. And your GDP numbers looked pretty persuasive. Plus, it's all Quinn's fault for egging me on.

    If it helps any, I disagree with you strenuously about the Chinese being bad masters once hegemony passes to them. Their rapid embrace of economic freedoms shows they aren't afraid of change, just cautious. And economic freedoms will inevitably lead to greater civil and human rights -- perhaps even actual democracy. 

    As for working with the world's most criminal regimes, you're on thin ice to compare China's record with that of the U.S. I won't rehash Quinn's entire rant from a week or so back, but let's start with the Shah's Savak, the Salvadoran death squads, the Chilean junta, the Nicaraguan contras, South Africa's apartheid government, Saddam Hussein around the time he was gassing Kurds -- the list is long and disreputable.

    The only government China has actually overthrown was Tibet's (over half a century back), although it has waged brief border wars against India and Vietnam. The States, by contrast, has overthrown militarily or helped stage local coups against dozens of governments all over the globe. Since they aren't the world's largest arms exporter, the Chinese appear to have less incentive to stoke international conflicts.


    I've got a violin here somewhere.

    OK, fine, let's scrap about the Chinese. In addition to Tibet, you left out North Korea (China supported), Vietnam (China supported and then invaded), the Khmer Rouge (China supported, very bad dudes), and of course the constant saber rattling towards Taiwan. And before Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds, Mao Zedong starved 40 million of his own people. More recently, the Chinese government only shot students.

    Moreover, China has no independent judiciary, they imprison political opponents, they censor the media, they broadcast propaganda, they still occupy Tibet, they sell arms to Zimbabwe and Sudan, they openly reject international human rights concerns, the government is rife with corruption, the population has violent nationalistic tendencies which the government often exploits, there are no elections, and the government has recently reiterated that they intend to remain a one-party nation for eternity. Did I miss anything?

    Look, China has changed, and I hope that they continue to do so, but you sound like a animal trainer telling me how cuddly the 400 lb caged tiger is and how it's never bitten anyone (unlike the yankee dog running amok in the circus). China is a very powerful, very dangerous country, and while everything could be hunky dory, everything could easily be not so hunky dory.


    OK, let's scrap a bit. I did mention the invasions of Tibet and Vietnam. The North Korean regime and Khmer Rouge were not Chinese puppets or creations. The first was installed by the Soviets over the period 1945-1950. China sent in its "volunteers" only after American troops pushed near its Yalu River border. The U.S. did not yet recognize the Beijing govt. and invasion was a real fear. Since that war, China has backed the North as a military buffer.

    Pol Pot and his not-so-merry men were Cambodian students who picked up their ideology from the French Communist Party, then gave it their own nasty spin. But they didn't gain power until after Nixon bombed the crap out of their country and helped depose the popular leader Prince Sihanouk. After the Vietnamese in turn deposed Pol Pot, China recognized a Khmer Rouge-led govt.-in-exile. But so did the United States! In its own way, the U.S. had as big a role in perpetuating those murderous regimes as China did.

    As for Taiwan, according to both the UN and the U.S., it is sovereign Chinese territory. That it's been allowed to go its own way this long shows amazing forbearance by Beijing. The two govts. recently established regular airline service, and Taiwanese athletes competed at the Beijing Olympics. They didn't appear too scared.

    If we go back a bit in time, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square were all definite low points in Chinese history. But the U.S. has also had its share: civil-rights murders and race riots, political assassinations, presidential crises and Kent State. None reliably predict where either country is now heading.

    Some of your other criticisms literally made me chuckle: nationalistic population, supine judiciary, corrupt government, media spewing propaganda, arms sales to dictators? All true enough, Genghis, but look around you. And China is taking at least baby steps to change. I've read that Canadian jurists regularly visit China to train judges in Western-style principles and procedures.

    China is big and increasingly powerful. But in its 3,000-year-plus history, even at its most powerful, it has seldom expanded beyond its current borders. (Tibet has at various times been autonomous or a vassal state.) More often, others have bitten off big chunks, and its wars have been defensive ones. China patiently negotiated the peaceful return of Hong Kong, and I'm convinced it intends to reintegrate Taiwan in much the same way. Chinese and U.S. warships now share the same anti-piracy duties off Somalia -- allies, in a way.

    Come on, Genghis. Stick your head in the tiger's mouth; you know you want to. I promise you won't feel a thing.


    I like reading the debates between you and Genghis, but I'm afraid if I keep it up, I might actually learn something. You wouldn't want that on your head, would you?


    I still insist that this is quibbling.

    But come on, are you seriously comparing Kent State to Tianamen Square? 4 students were killed Kent State, and it prompted a national outcry. Newspapers printed the photos, universities closed, the guardsmen were indicted, 100K people protested in Washington, and millions demonstrated nationwide.

    In Tiannamen, thousands were killed. The press was silenced, protesters were arrested, and student sympathizers in the government were purged.

    This response to government abuse represents in a nutshell the difference between China and the U.S., between a closed society and an open one. It illustrates not where the countries are "heading" but what they actually are. To this day, China has not recognized the massacre, and the subject is taboo in the press. An ex-soldier was just arrested for writing an open letter to Hu Jintao that expresses criticism of the incident.

    I agree that China has not historically been expansionist outside its immediate vicinity, I appreciate the caution with which they've addressed their increasing global influence, and I'm hopeful that the country will continue to reform. But you keep whitewashing the nation's serious failings or responding that well, the U.S. is just as bad, when it's on an entirely different plane. It seems like willful blindness caused by your anger at the U.S.

    OK, maybe more than a quibble.


    I'm not angry at the U.S.; you're mistaking me for that Eskimo guy. I love Americans. I just think they generally suck at formulating foreign policy and electing presidents. They may have finally got it right.

    I'm not blind to China's past, either, but today's China is not Mao's China. Still largely a tightly controlled, top-down society, agreed. There is such a thing as national characteristics, acquired over centuries. Relatively, the U.S. has barely begun to define its national character.

    You point to Tiananmen Square as a terrible blot and indictment. I see it as an amazingly positive event. Not the crackdown, of course. The fact that thousands of citizens had the courage to break tradition and demand change, reminding their government who hands out the mandates of heaven. And I see the fruits of that protest in the gradual amelioration that has occurred since. Even the crackdown was relatively muted; just a few years earlier, Red Guards had rampaged through the country, "re-educating" and persecuting anyone not sufficiently ideological.

    You correctly note that Tiananmen is a taboo subject, unacknowledged by the government or media. Right, we all have things we're too ashamed to speak of. Ever consider what happened to the herds of buffalo, Genghis? Were they really hunted to virtual extinction (often by furloughed U.S. troops) just for their hides?Not that I think modern Americans carry collective guilt for genocide, but the history texts are largely, conveniently silent. 

    Let me reiterate: I don't hate the United States. But Americans could reflect a bit more before criticizing other countries that don't live up to the high standards they claim to uphold.


    On the substance, we not in significant disagreement. There are hopeful signs from China, they're on track to become a superpower sooner or later, the U.S. f-ed up many times.

    What's bugging my about your tactic in this argument and why I unfortunately resorted to a slight ad hominem criticism is the "you did it too" response. I happen to be an American who does reflect on the this countries flaws and who recognizes the strengths of other countries. My sister is native american, and I need no reminders of the nation's often tragic history. But the fact that the U.S. is flawed and China is flawed does not mean that the U.S. = China.

    It does seem like a form of blindness or else disingenuousness to equate Kent State with Tianamen, race riots with the Great Leap Forward, and American lack of self-criticism with persecution and imprisonment of critics. The only way that I can understand you to make that equation in good faith is if you have some particular antipathy towards the U.S. or at least the U.S. government.


    The Independent's Johann Hari called out this tactic as "what-aboutism" in a recent column.


    To be fair to ac, this post did explicitly compare the U.S. to China, so he wasn't really changing the subject as Hari describes. If the U.S. were government were equally repressive, ac's point would be appropriate. The flaw I see in his argument is pointing out American actions and policies that are in some way comparable to Chinese actions and policies as a way to demonstrate the actions and policies are morally or politically equivalent, e.g. Kent State and Tianamen. And when I've tried to explain why they're different, e.g. the media was muzzled and the critics arrested, he has just come back with yet another comparable but inequivalent and unrelated example, e.g. history book silence on soldiers shooting buffalo. So we go in circles.


    Sure, but what Hari describes isn't merely changing the subject.  As he points out, this happens constantly and on both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate.  However, as is the case in the examples you've discussed, the specific actions are rarely equivalent though equally deplorable.


    Genghis, I try very hard -- and largely succeed -- to separate my thoughts about the United States and Americans from those about the surreal, dystopian, bizarro world that was conjured up out of the dark void over the past eight years. Millions dying, bloodied and displaced over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Fabricated axes of evil. An arrogant, witless idiot stealing the mantle of leader of the free world. Shredding of international and domestic law. The pathological drive to add a third Mideast war to the current list. Trial balloons about the use of nuclear weapons. The elevation of ignorance. The denigration of truth. The attempted subversion and redefinition of what is moral, principled and ethical. Torture and other war crimes.

    One corollary of a country's hegemony is the responsibilty to act sanely and rationally. To understand who your friends and allies are, even when they disagree with you. For nearly a decade, the U.S. earned itself an F on that score. I lived through the Cuban missile crisis and never blamed the U.S. for traumatizing me. I'm much older and wiser now, but Bush and his horde scared the crap out of me. So yeah, I probably retain a little antipathy. As do millions around the world.

    I've obviously engaged in hyperbole; we're having an internet debate, for God's sake. I don't equate China and the U.S. But if you're going to call China dangerous (and you do), please compare the effect of that country's actions over the past decade with that of your own country's. The major threat to world peace and stability has not come from Beijing.

    We've argued before and I've never questioned your good faith. Still don't. You put this post out there in the expectation and hope that it would spark debate. After a slow start, it has. It's natural for you to present your country in the best possible light. It's my duty to point out any flaws in your argument. You'll get a chance to reciprocate when I post on why Canada should dominate the new world order. 


    If it was bad to be in Canada while Bush & Co. f-ed the world, imagine how it was for us. After Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation most thoroughly wrecked by Bush policies was the U.S.

    I apologize for questioning your good faith. I just got a bit frustrated with what you're calling hyperbole, by which I understand you to mean absurdly-flawed-logic-that-barely-deserves-the-name-logic-but-what-can-you-expect-from-a-soft-headed-Canadian. Seriously, it's great to get the international perspective, and I'm glad that we finally got to have our argument. We can revisit in 10-to-40 years whenever China becomes a superpower.


    Five.


    Well, Genghis, like others have said, you haven't left much room for discussion with this well researched, written and footnoted blog but I do have an slightly different angle.

    I was thinking about what led to the downfall of the British empire to compare to US downfall but I realized they didn't compare because of the colony thing, but then I wondered if the spread of the British empire was made it easier for American hegemony because of the language exposure.  I am always amazed at the number and variety of foreign people that speak English.  I know that English is the language of science and technology world wide and that helps but I don't think that accounts for the amount of English speakers.  Will Chinese be able to replace English as a world wide common language?  While the economic and military numbers are clear cut, you stated that hegemony was more than just that.  I would think that the cultural influence of language would be one of those indirect things.

    Now that I have convinced myself that the language thing will save US hegemony, I wonder what language the Chinese use in the Africa countries they are getting oil from and supposedly whipping up the Muslims against the Christians. ummmm?

    Tomorrow I will post all supporting references I find after I look for them!

     


    Thanks, Splashy. It's an interesting point, but English is the third most common native language in in the world, after Mandarin and Spanish. Moreover, over 80% of English speakers are in the U.S., and almost all the rest are concentrated in just three nations: England, India, and Nigeria.

    English is the most popular second language in the world, but I believe that's a recent development--a result rather than a consequence of American hegemony.


    Weighing in late here, but I think Splashy's point does refer to the fact that English is the most commonly spoken 2nd language. If China gains hegemony, will they use English as the language of trade and diplomacy? Or will we all be learning Chinese?


    Wow. 1st round TKO. Champeeeeeen.... acanuck!

    It's almost as though, in moving to Philly, the G-mans' lost 70 or 80 IQ points. Which puts him around 20, by my count. I'd forget it, acanuck. The guy's like the Ed Van Impe of arguing. 

    Ok. At some point, the US $ is gonna move 20%-40% down against the yuan. So the math gets massively different just from that one move, because the varying growth rates will then apply to such different base GDP's. Ed Van Impe, I tell ya. Hell, maybe Moose Dupont.

    And the Gman's numbers? Whoo-eeee. The US has 80% of native English speakers? It's 65%-70% at best. And if you can't trust the author on numbers that important, what can you trust? Look, just ask a child how many Americans speak English, and what % they make up of all English speakers. (C'mere kid.)

    "How many Americans speak English?"

    "None."

    "Smart kid. Here's a Fresca." (Now get back to planning our hegemonic take-over. And pump up the "moral superiority" angle, willya? These clowns are on the ropes.)

    And the Vietnam War, 1.7 million? Hullo? Try 3-4 million, another 1 million in the region pre-Pol Pot. Another 1-1.5 million in Iran-Iraq. Not that China wouldn't (won't) be worse, I think they may well be. But at least Canuck universities require some degree of intellectual rigour. (Such a kickass word, eh? "Rigour." Shame the Yanks spell it wrong.)

    Main things missing here are: a) dynamics, b) multi-polar. Take b). Add India's growth in, sustain it, maybe add one of Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, whatever, and the real global weight of the U.S. shrinks dramatically. More important, a) the whole game comes down to dynamics. Is the US coming up, or headed down? It's all about growth. Because a lot of countries, investors, global rules & regs, alliances, are gonna shift if they sniff that the US is truly headed downward. e.g. Reserve currency, World Bank & IMF domination? Buh-bye.

    But if the US is falling, let's drop the masks and talk straight here for a moment. Friend to friend. If the US starts to fall, it's toast. For no other reason than that we've got the world's longest undefended border, and we Canucks have taken shit from certain unnamed loudmouths for helluva longtime. That's right, I said it. Meant it. Helluva. We're that mad.  

    So I'm glad Philly is South of NYC, for your sake, Genghis. Personally, if I met you during the coming conflict, I'd really take your contribution here into account. Really. While considering your fate. Exile? Execution? But the thing is, acanuck's a bad-tempered SOB. I'm not sure I could hold him back. So I'd think Atlanta. Got any cities South of that?

    Miami?!! Don't mess with me. It's gonna be underwater. And besides, Genghis in Miami?


    Naw, Quinn. Ac didn't even put up a fight. It was a technical forfeit.

    English speakers - You're right. 70%. I misread the stats. But it was just a comment. Point stands.

    Vietnam - 1.7 in the "American" phase of the war. 3.5 with Cambodia and the rest. At least that's what this guy says. Point stands in any case.

    GDP - Numbers are from the World Bank, IMF, etc. Compiled by the USDA. Take it up with them. Possibility of currency fluctuations affecting projections acknowledged in PPP discussion.

    Preparation for Canadian invasian - Learning Canadian slang so that I can infiltrate the jeezly troops and launch insurgency.


    Helluva.


    oh this is so much fun to read. i'm not a big fan of canucks in general right about now after what vancouver did to my beloved blues, but you goofballs sure now how to put up a fun argument (altho im still not sure what we're arguing about - that US hegemony is here to stay? that we should be happy it's hear to stay?)

    bluesplashy makes a good point - I certainly believe that the supremacy of the English language, and much more importantly, of our kickass U.S. culture will ensure America remains the Big Kahuna for far longer than our economic might might otherwise justify. I mean, American films will be dominating worldwide box offices long after the American dollar has lost its status as world's reserve currency of status.that has to count for something - we may not get to decide what despotic regime to back any longer but we will certainly hold sway over emerging fashions and catchphrases.

    btw, just because you annotate your stats with a 'the yuan may appreciate' caveat doesn't mean you can brush aside the ramifications of such a move. It would take a very small move in the yuan to make those calculations basically useless, and I agree with Quinn, if the yuan was ever allow to float we'd likely see a 10% percent move upward immediately, and a much bigger move than that before you could say Year of the Metal Rabbit.


    Our kickass US culture? I hope you're kidding. When I was in Madrid 10 years ago, I spotted a Dunkin Donuts and a Kentucky Fried Chicken on the same block. Made me want to cry.

    Made me want to cry.

    Isn't that the epitome of "kickass"? ;)


    Wait a minute! That first-round thing was a slip, not a knockdown. Look upthread; while you weren't paying attention, there's been another whole round, and I landed a few. I may even be ahead on points.

    The debate really does come down to how fast U.S. power will decrease, and how fast China's will rise. It won't come overnight, but I think the Chinese are confident they will reach economic parity. The only way the States could stop it would be to corner all the Mideast oil. (Could that have been the real rationale for the Iraq-Iran dice toss?) Anyway, that won't work now, since China holds enough American paper to send the economy into a tailspin on a moment's notice.

    The economic crisis will give everyone an excuse to cut back on military expeditures, and I expect the F-22 cancellation and the presidential choppers are just the start. Maybe we'll see negotiated ceilings like the limits on battleships post-WW I. The new emphasis on soft power is smart because hard power just costs too damn much.


    Could that have been the real rationale for the Iraq-Iran dice toss?

    In a word?  Yes.

    "The American way of life is not negotiable."

    It's also not possible without the oil.


    Worth watching:


    I'll bet. If only that white screen weren't in front of it. 

     

    Or am I doing something wrong? Again.


    The image is being held at the border until we pay the import duty.


    President Obama has intervened and expedited the process. It may be be too late, however, as the media hype may have degraded the experience by heightening expectations.


    OK, now I'm scared too. Who knew?


    And Genghis wonders how Hegemons crumble. 

    Well, actually, he doesn't wonder. He's too busy mass consuming, in a desperate attempt to reignite the economy. Although, from the outside, it looks more like he's conspicuously consuming, in a desperate attempt to look better than his Philly friends, little realizing that the term "Philly friend" is itself not only a non-sequiter and a contradiction in terms, but also a sign of some really bad life choices.

    My point? 

    Shit. I hate it when people ask for that. Ok. Watch this. It'll explain something. I think it's from some documentary on Philly.


    Filmed in Nova Scotia, I see. That's where you're from, right? It does indeed explain a number of things.


    What're you implying? That I'm lying about the clip being from Philly? 'Cause that's what I'd expect someone from a dying hegemon to do.

    And besides, so what if it was? Is that a crime? The Chinese don't think so. They tell us our trailer parks are magical places, cultural wonderlands, and would we mind awfully just lifting our feet for a moment while they vacuum the minerals from the soil beneath.

    Then, they give us pizza. Which makes us happy.

    Unlike the hegemonic implications of some people.


    That's the difference between Canada and the U.S. We would never eat Chinese pizza.

    PS Though I must say that Philadelphia pizza is pretty weak