How long does the US have?
 

Is the US at the peak of it's power and importance on the world scene? Are we already past our peak? or are we still on the uphill climb gaining power and influence in perpetuity?

The poll question is this: How long will it be before the US is a has-been on the world scene in terms of power and influence?

Never, The US will resort to nukes before it let's go and loses it's power.

I think the US is comparable to the aging football star who peaked in his adolescence. Getting close to middle aged now and shocked at the back pains, yet still hearing the cheers of the crowds, if only in his own mind.

I don't know, are there any Bushes left?

We are head and shoulders above everyone else in the world, but we are on the decline. We are lower than our former selves, and others (EU and China) are rising. It's just a matter of time.

No, the use of nukes (or any other WMD) will only happen (IMO) under two scenarios.

1) A nation on the rise. They don't have much to lose and a lot to gain. The government is still relatively fluid and unchecked. They don't have a lot of national guilt weighing on their souls to cause decision makers to think "what will the voters think?" It is sort of like a teenager in that it has some amazing new power and strength but not the maturity to realize that real strength comes from not only relying on physical ability.

2) A religious/ethnic fanatic run government. The central theme/belief/identity is so overwhelmingly important that there is no sacrifice too great if it will further the cause. Popularity, acceptance, approval does not even weigh into the equation. If wiping 200 million people off the face of the earth will solidify or further the cause, then it is worth it.

The US is already past the first scenario. Our politicians are driven by polling numbers and dreams of legacy. They wouldn't want to smudge their good name :right: by ordering mass destruction. They know that the US citizenry doesn't have the stomach for it.

The US won't get to the second scenario because we'll never have an ethnic or religious identity that ties us all together again. Those days are gone and won't be back.

I sincerely hope you are right lookout, but some would say there are fanatics in office as we type!

Read Lookout's posts ... then think about Pakistan ...
Scared yet?

Nope [/head in sand]

I'm curious what you might mean by "power" in this. There has been, for years, a question if the US still has the power it once had to invent, to innovate, to produce, and to dominate when it came to technology. There's also industrial might. Other measures include military might (which I think we still hold and will for some time) and quality of life (we haven't held the top spot for this in decades).

If you think we are past our peak, what era did we peak? Shortly after WWII? During the 1960s space race?

I'm just waiting for Australia to be the next world power.

I think it'll be some time next week. :)

I just looked that the poll. I'm surprised the results. I'd love to know who clicked 0 - 15 and their reasons for doing so.

I clicked on 30 - 50 because I think that's about the period of time it'll be before 'another nation' will be acknowledged as the world power, as opposed to everyone knowing they're the one to watch, but not being brave enough to say it.

We are going to stay here alright....we are just going to mutate into mexico. I'm not saying that to be inflammatory...it's just true.

I haven't clicked
It will take longer than 50 years but of course it will happen.

i'm thinking the 16-30 range. gives us a couple more elections to completely screw up with successively lower turnout. a couple more recessions and on real big one tipping over when people realize that real estate is a comodity and the baby boom generation is fading out and we have way more supply than demand. a couple more military actions with dubious outcomes creating more passively minded skeptics until very few believe anything is worth fighting for.

I clicked 0-15. Because I am a pessimist. but mostly because the way I read the question was "How long before the US is past its peak." I think that has probably already happened. Just my :2cents: .

I like my financial planners a little more pollyana-ish.

I went with 50. There will be many many years of denial, but all empires contract. Its the nature of the beast. We could string it out longer if we had a few Presidents with less vision but we don't like small people in charge.

i can refer you to plenty. i hope for the happy version but plan for the rough side. overseas investments are wise for a number of reasons. so is stockpiling a heavy arsenal at home.:tinfoil:

I believe we are passed its peak or in it right now but I don't think we will decline much, we will be a top contender for a while.

When we do decline, we will probably be something like Britain or France is now so its not like we are we are going to full out collapse like Rome.

i'd rather collapse completely than live in a nation that doesn't understand it it past it. a la france.

you could imigrate to Australia then lookout. We're on the rise here don't you know?

Jenna for Prez?

But we don't have to have that to get to the situation you describe... we just have to have it in the government. And a fanatic-run government is not impossible.
You really think that will be enough to keep the housing market down permanently? I wonder. First, there are too many in the industry who benefit from higher prices. (Realtors, mortgage bankers, insurance agencies, etc.) Second, people want to buy more expensive houses... it's economic code for moving up. House A isn't more expensive than house B because it's a better-built house or it's on more land (though it may be)... it's generally more expensive because richer people live in the house A neighborhood. The schools are always better in the richer neighborhood. (Always? Really? Well, that's the perception... and this is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy no matter which direction it's going. Perception is almost more than reality in this case.)
You might be surprised who will fight, if the country is directly threatened a la WWII.
"Yeah, Griff, it's just a blip . . . The Dow's gonna hit 17,000 by the end of 2009. Yeah, telecoms... you definitely want to be in the telecom companies. That dark fiber's going to turn out valuable yet."

Oh, wait, you said a little, not a lot. :D

Great idea!
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/m...-picture-5.jpg

I said 30-50, and I'm actually more on the 50 end of that range, because things always take more time than people think. Regardless, though, I agree with pierce--we're not going to implode, we'll just fade into obsolescence for awhile. Maybe we'll even have a comeback sometime even farther down the line. Standards of living will be reined in a bit (remember the days when families spent a long time actually saving up for a car because no one but no one would issue a car loan for more than three years?), but most people's daily lives will be relatively unaffected.

Maybe I've read too much Heinlein... but some days I'm convinced that the best chance of this would be the installation of a totalitarian government. The necessity to wake up and kick its ass would remind us why the USA is here in the first place and then we'd be good for another couple hundred years.

We should distinguish between relative decline and absolute decline.
Relative decline considers the USA's position relative to other countries. In this measure I think most people would agree that the US is in relative decline, if only because of the extreme growth that China is going through. The US getting tangled up in foreign wars speeds the process.

For the US to decline in absolute terms would be to decay in terms of morale and national self-belief, which is where Rome first turned rotten. Lookout talks about the sort of things that cause this: (apparently) pointless wars, (perceived) social injustice, apathy.

My assessment: the US is at present the preeminent nation but China is rapidly overhauling them. In 20 or 30 years China will have more strength, but perceptions of US strength will continue beyond this - especially in the US. I doubt that the US will ever fall to the state where Spain is now - truly a bit-player. More like (sorry Lookout) France or Britain are today - still having some international credibility, but not dominating as now.

Say ... we're all watching China - has anyone been keeping an eye on India? They've got a billion people, the bomb, and a growing economy too. They may end up being the second player/balance to China.

Does the central government of India have the where-with-all, to control the mounting strife that overpopulation causes, between the castes?

I don't think India has the technological or industrial base to be the next world power. I certainly think they're worth keeping an eye on though. They are a real concern.

I honestly don't think India or China currently has the cultural base to be a true leader. They are both powerhouses of industrious and qualified manpower, for sure, but they don't value innovation enough yet. China's getting there, but it'll be awhile yet.

Some would argue that China has a culture far stronger than that of any western nation.

I think Clodfobble was referring to the insularity and supertraditional nature of that culture, not a lack of culture.

OK, well if that's the case, then why would that preclude them from being the world power?

I thought it was more along the lines of the communist rule perhaps quashing the diplomacy required (generally) in a world power, but then I thought about how all the other nations who have risen to power and how they went about it, and there wasn't a whole lot of diplomacy involved in most cases.

My personal view of China though, just to make my position clear, is that there'll be a 'cultural revolution' before they 'take over the world' anyway.

Yes, Happy Monkey said what I meant. It's like in the Chinese Job Fair IOTD: someone mentioned that even today, college graduates are pushed very singularly into either a sciences or humanities track, and the other path is completely ignored. That is not the best way, overall, to produce the most successful people, because people's innate skills are not so starkly lopsided, and the most innovative inventions and advances usually come from synthesizing knowledge or skills in multiple areas.

In addition, they still have a lot of cultural pressure to conform, which is good for solid, predictable results but never good for advancement or innovation. I guess what it really comes down to is if you think brilliance is a primary source of a country's success. And I agree that it doesn't have to be, but I think it is a primary source of international respect and being granted a de facto "leadership" position.

I see your point Clod and I agree. On the flip side though, every other world power has had some pretty bad cultural issues too. Look at the Brits and their system of government when they ruled the world. There were massive social problems at the time. Same with the French. The Romans won their way to front with slaves in the army.

I'm not so sure it matters that much really, but as times have changed, so too would the parameters I guess.