Decline and Fall?

Kevin Phillips stuffed the middle of this op-ed with plenty of caveats, but still winds up direly warning that "The loss of global economic leadership that overtook Britain and Holland seems to be looming on our own horizon."

It's worth taking a deep breath and looking back at those caveats. The United States is currently the richest country in the world by a pretty wide margin. Since China and India are both growing from a much smaller base, it should be possible for them to maintain higher average growth rates over an extended period of time eventually overtake us in terms of overall GDP. But it should be noted that there's nothing inevitable about this -- poor policymaking kept Chinese and Indian growth slow for a long time, and poor policymaking could easily return. How confident are you -- is anyone -- that China will go the next twenty years without a major political crisis?

But more to the point, even if that did happen, the typical American would still be substantially better off than the typical Indian. Visit the Netherlands some time and you'll see that it's a very nice country whose residents enjoy a spectacularly high standard of living. It just happens to be a very small country so the overall Dutch GDP is, in PPP adjusted terms, smaller than that of their ex-colony Indonesia. But nobody's sitting around in Amsterdam saying "it sure would be better if we were an economic leader like Indonesia!" They're doing fine, and we'll be doing fine, too, if big, poor countries eventually turn into big middle-income countries.

Comments

So what were the Dutch saying in 1942?

Answer in German, please.

Posted by Don Williams | May 19, 2008 11:59 AM

Thank you. It frustrates me to no end all of the handwringing that accompanies the fact that the US may not be #1 in everything eventually. Like you've noted, it's a function purely of population.

I've always thought it would be nice to live in a country that didn't have to dominate everything. Then we could spend some money on health care or education or whatever else you may like that really affects peoples' lives rather than on a bunch of bombers etc.

Posted by lfv | May 19, 2008 12:01 PM

1) Come to think of it, what did the female Dutch residents of Indonesia think about being sex slaves for the Japanese?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#World_War_II

2) And what would have happened to the Netherlands in the 1960s if not for the protection of the USA?

Ответ в Россия, please

Posted by Don Williams | May 19, 2008 12:09 PM

Actually, this post is pretty comical coming from a guy who just released a book titled "Heads in the Sand".

Posted by Don Williams | May 19, 2008 12:11 PM

And if China and India gradually become much more like the EU (and thus the United States) in political terms as they close the gap economically (which isn't a bad bet), then that is likely even better news for the U.S., regardless of where that puts the U.S. on various aggregate ranking tables. Indeed, would anyone vote for slashing the economic productivity of the EU at the cost of turning back their political progress? It is hard to see how that would truly benefit the people of the United States.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 12:12 PM

We'll be doing better if big poor countries turn into middle income countries.

Posted by Will Allen | May 19, 2008 12:12 PM

But nobody's sitting around in Amsterdam saying "it sure would be better if we were an economic leader like Indonesia!"

I bet you money that there are such people in Amsterdam making such complaints, and it's an empirical question, and I would like to know which political sub-groupings are the ones who make this complaint -- i.e., 'We have been outstripped by our former colony!'

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 12:14 PM

It took the Dutch a long time to come to grip with their reduced status in the world. One thing that happened was a revolution in 1785 that preceded the French one. It wasn't painless for the Dutchers nor will it be for us.

Posted by Drew Robertson | May 19, 2008 12:14 PM

China and India are going to face a lot of problems as they try to get their population growth into negative territory, not the least of which is having too many old people supported by too few younger workers.

The United States is one of the few large countries on the planet that is not only large (3rd by population) but also has significant room to grow much, much larger. When China's population does plateau, the United States will likely continue to grow at a steady pace.

The short, medium, and long term outlook for the US are all better than China. Certainly in terms of standard of living, but also in combined wealth.

Posted by matthewcc | May 19, 2008 12:15 PM

But nobody's sitting around in Amsterdam saying "it sure would be better if we were an economic leader like Indonesia!" They're doing fine, and we'll be doing fine, too, if big, poor countries eventually turn into big middle-income countries.

Well, I think the main difference between Holland and America is that the former can rely on the latter to protect it. Who is the United States going to rely on for protection when China's GDP has not merely equaled America's (possibly in as little as ten years in PPP terms), but is several times larger (in, say, another five or six decades)?

I agree we'll still probably be "fine" for the foreseeable future. Nuclear weapons are pretty effective deterrents and all. But it does mean we'd best get our diplomatic house in order pronto.

Posted by Jasper | May 19, 2008 12:22 PM

The "we're number 1" meme is both stupid and tiresome.
The massive reduction in poverty in Asia in recent years is a wonderful thing for the world. God willing it will happen in other places also. We're doing just fine regardless, or we would be if we weren't pouring trillions of dollars down the Iraqi rat hole.
And, Don - switch to decaf, man. If the best the hawks can come up with in the way of an existential threat is a third rate power like Iran, your women folk are in no danger of being sex slaves to invading hordes anytime soon.

Posted by peter | May 19, 2008 12:23 PM

Not to mention, Don, that this idiotic post is a reference to Gibbon.

I don't know what edition of Decline and Fall Matt read in Cambridge, but the ones I've read in New York and Chicago are all pretty similar in their description of catastrophe following the loss of economic strength. In addition to asking about how those Dutch women felt, we could ask how Gaul or Illyricum or Lusitania enjoyed themselves once the Empire ran out of resources.

Posted by Greg | May 19, 2008 12:26 PM

peter-

Don's not a hawk, if you've read any of his hundreds of posts here.

Posted by Greg | May 19, 2008 12:30 PM

By the way, I think matthewcc is right. As I would put it, often underlooked in these discussions is that unlike many former great powers, including Holland and Britain, the United States proper (not counting colonies and such) occupies a really large and sweet piece of real estate, and we are not yet utilizing it to anything like its full economic potential thanks to a relatively low population density. Nor necessarily should we be trying to push the land of the United States to its full economic potential, but that possibility gives the United States a lot of options down the road.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 12:33 PM

"The United States is one of the few large countries on the planet that is not only large (3rd by population) but also has significant room to grow much, much larger. When China's population does plateau, the United States will likely continue to grow at a steady pace.

The short, medium, and long term outlook for the US are all better than China. Certainly in terms of standard of living, but also in combined wealth.

Posted by matthewcc | May 19, 2008 12:15 PM"

Good point. Our population density is rather low and we'll still be able to take in young immigrants for generations, especially in sparsely populated states like Wyoming. Meanwhile, China is already overpopulated, has trouble integrating foreign cultures into it and sparsely populated areas (like Tibet) are often off-limits to foreigners and also so economically behind the rest of the country it's not clear why anyone would move there.

"Well, I think the main difference between Holland and America is that the former can rely on the latter to protect it. Who is the United States going to rely on for protection when China's GDP has not merely equaled America's (possibly in as little as ten years in PPP terms), but is several times larger (in, say, another five or six decades)?

I agree we'll still probably be "fine" for the foreseeable future. Nuclear weapons are pretty effective deterrents and all. But it does mean we'd best get our diplomatic house in order pronto.

Posted by Jasper | May 19, 2008 12:22 PM"

Good point, but if (a big if sadly at this point) we do get our diplomatic house in order, we should be fine. If China wants to act belligerently, we'll likely have Europe, Australia, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, Israel and Turkey on our side. For ideological reasons and if we are smart diplomatically, India, Indonesia, Thailand (and possibly Bangladesh if it reverts to full democracy anytime soon) will probably be as well. Lots of Central Asian states have been leaning to the US to counter dangers posed by Russian, and to a lesser extent Chinese, power. Russia might get worried if China becomes too powerful and/or belligerent. Pakistan could be a wild card, along with maybe Laos. If China starts acting crazy, its definite regional allies are limited to Burma, North Korea and maybe Uzbekistan. We can easily make sure major and regional powers outside the region (Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, maybe Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran) over the long term prefer us and access to our market than China if need be as long as we play our card right. It all depends on not being stupid.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 12:39 PM

It's not just that we'll be doing fine if poor countries become middle-income countries. It's that we should have as an explicit goal of our foreign policy that they move from being poor to being middle-class.

Jasper, what sort of future are you predicting for the US and for China? What sort of population do you expect for the US and for China? What sort of GDP per capita? "Several times larger" seems a stretchl. (My take: I'd expect a US population of between 400 and 500 million and a Chinese population of around 1 billion. Assuming that GDP per capita are the same (which is aggressive in favor of your scenario), the Chinese economy would be little more than 2x the US economy.)

Posted by Thomas | May 19, 2008 12:40 PM

Oh, and if we ever needed more underutilized land, there is always Canada.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 12:42 PM

Matt keeps mentioning that the U.S. is the richest country. Richest in what sense? Not in per capita terms. We do have the biggest economy by a large margin but maybe not for long (China is catching up fast).

I agree with some commentators that being the biggest/richest is not necessarily that important. However, it does entitle one to bragging rights, and in that sense it would be an important milestone if and when China (and maybe India) surpasses us. How long then can we claim to be the world’s one and only superpower? Again some people might think that is a good outcome. But I’m not sure a world where China (in its current manifestation as a sorta communist dictatorship) is numero uno is really desirable. More worrying are trends that the U.S. is falling behind in education, scientific research and technology. That is pretty serious. If we loose our edge in innovating then we loose a big part of what makes us so dynamic and special. It would really be great if we could stop arguing about creationism/God/liberal-conservative bullshit and get back to hard work and studying (hopefully backed by an immigration policy that still attracts the world’s best and brightest).

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | May 19, 2008 12:54 PM

Your point about the Dutch is a fine one. A well-managed country that sticks to its ideals can decline can traverse a power trajectory into a golden era. Power is way overrated.

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 19, 2008 1:06 PM

The planet doesn't have enough resources for China and India to reach the same standard of living as Mexico, much less the United States. There sure as hell isn't enough oil, gas, and coal, for China and India to consume at even European rates, much less American rates. The sharp increase in food prices is largely due to a very small percentage of Chinese and Indians eating like First World residents.

The problem that pessimists like Philips see with a rise in China's ecomomic power relative to the United States is that there just aren't enough natural resources in the world for everyone to live like middle class Americans. As China and India grow wealthier, they come into competition with the U.S. for increasingly scarcer commodities. The rising commodity prices, in the abscence of significant increases in real wages will and currently are making Americans worse off.

Posted by Jay | May 19, 2008 1:08 PM

The United States is one of the few large countries on the planet that is not only large (3rd by population) but also has significant room to grow much, much larger.
Posted by matthewcc | May 19, 2008 12:15 PM

The U.S. (not to mention the planet) is already grossly overpopulated in terms of environmentally sustainable use of its resources, especially water. A U.S. with over 500 million people will probably look more like Brazil today than what we're used to.

I do look forward to the day when we don't care if we are a superpower or not, but it won't happen until the 22nd century, if we survive that long as a species.

Posted by gordonminor | May 19, 2008 1:12 PM

Those of us old enough to remember all of the doom and gloom stories in the 1980s about how Japan was leaving the US in the dust take these inevitable decline stories with a grain of salt

Posted by Campesino | May 19, 2008 1:14 PM

The idiot Williams: 1) Come to think of it, what did the female Dutch residents of Indonesia think about being sex slaves for the Japanese?

Being a colony of the world's largest economic power didn't do much for the Philippines in 1942 either.

Not to mention that the Netherlands was, in fact, a considerable economic power in the 1940s...

Williams rabbits on: And what would have happened to the Netherlands in the 1960s if not for the protection of the USA?

Yes, because being a US ally in the 1960s meant you were completely safe from the threat of Communism.
How is SEATO doing these days, anyway?

DTM, by contrast, makes a sensible point: unlike many former great powers, including Holland and Britain, the United States proper (not counting colonies and such) occupies a really large and sweet piece of real estate, and we are not yet utilizing it to anything like its full economic potential thanks to a relatively low population density.

True-ish. Though the population of Britain is now double what it was in the 1930s (60m vs 30m) and the country's now an exporter, not an importer, of food...

Posted by ajay | May 19, 2008 1:22 PM

Jasper,

If China has a GDP several (at least 3) times that of the US in my lifetime, I'll eat my hate. The demographic/economic trends are not in China's favor. Due to the one child policy, China is going to get old before they get rich. Also, their industries are low value add, low cost rather than high end, knowledge based industries. On a per capita basis, China ranks behind Egypt. To catch us, they would have to double their per capita GDP immediately and they would still be 1/3 of our per capita GDP.

Posted by Mo | May 19, 2008 1:27 PM

1) What has us by the nuts is our need to IMPORT a lot of strategic raw materials. As Asia becomes middle-class, the competition for those materials will become intense. The type of intensity that spawns nuclear wars.

Competition that is already beginning because of China's need for oil.

2) As I've noted before, I think the SECRET rationale for the Vietnam War was the USA's intense Cold War need for tungsten -- to make high tempterature steel alloys for things like jet engines for the Air Force.

A small mine in Thailand and another in South Korea were among the few sources outside the Communist bloc during the Cold War -- and we sucked up those deposits in no time.

3)Today, we get 70 percent of our tungsten from IMPORTS -- most of it from China. And China announced last year that she will LIMIT her exports of tungsten. She already has the market almost cornered.

See http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/tungsten/mcs-2008-tungs.pdf and
http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/reports/2007/pdf/2007_STRATEGIC_MATERIALS.pdf

4) Maybe that $1 Trillion pissed away in Iraq -- and the $2 Trillion pissed away on a tax cut to create jobs in China -- might have been better spent on stockpiling certain materials.

Maybe Matthew can put out a NEW book --titled "Heads Up Our Ass".

Posted by Don Williams | May 19, 2008 1:28 PM

For those worried about China, what, in your opinion, is the worst case scenario? Mostly I am genuinely curious. Do you foresee millions of Chinese troops landing on the beaches of California, or something a bit more subtle?

Posted by MS | May 19, 2008 1:29 PM

For those worried about China, what, in your opinion, is the worst case scenario? Mostly I am genuinely curious. Do you foresee millions of Chinese troops landing on the beaches of California, or something a bit more subtle?

Posted by MS | May 19, 2008 1:32 PM

"The planet doesn't have enough resources for China and India to reach the same standard of living as Mexico, much less the United States. There sure as hell isn't enough oil, gas, and coal, for China and India to consume at even European rates, much less American rates. The sharp increase in food prices is largely due to a very small percentage of Chinese and Indians eating like First World residents."

As Jared Diamond points out, Americans on average could consume a tiny fraction of the resources we do consume and still enjoy the same standard of living. Our packaging could be smaller, we could subsidize meat less (we already eat too much beef anyway, which makes us fat) and stop subsidizing corn, we could have our towns and cities better planned to encourage walking and public transportation, we could remember to turn the lights off when leaving a room, drive smaller cars with higher efficiency standards instead of SUVs, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 1:47 PM

As I've noted before, I think the SECRET rationale for the Vietnam War was the USA's intense Cold War need for tungsten -- to make high tempterature steel alloys for things like jet engines for the Air Force.

A small mine in Thailand and another in South Korea were among the few sources outside the Communist bloc during the Cold War -- and we sucked up those deposits in no time.

Canada and the US together have 16% of the world's supply of tungsten, you maniac. The US was exporting tungsten during the Vietnam War.
http://www.itia.org.uk/Default.asp?page=51
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/tungsten/680798.pdf

Posted by ajay | May 19, 2008 1:51 PM

As I've noted before, I think the SECRET rationale for the Vietnam War was the USA's intense Cold War need for tungsten -- to make high tempterature steel alloys for things like jet engines for the Air Force.

A small mine in Thailand and another in South Korea were among the few sources outside the Communist bloc during the Cold War -- and we sucked up those deposits in no time.

Canada and the US together have 16% of the world's supply of tungsten, you maniac. The US was exporting tungsten during the Vietnam War. And Vietnam has barely got any tungsten at all. That makes about as much sense as saying that the Gulf War was fought because the US wanted to secure its supplies of reindeer.

http://www.itia.org.uk/Default.asp?page=51
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/tungsten/680798.pdf

Posted by ajay | May 19, 2008 1:53 PM

More worrying are trends that the U.S. is falling behind in education, scientific research and technology. That is pretty serious. If we loose our edge in innovating then we loose a big part of what makes us so dynamic and special. It would really be great if we could stop arguing about creationism/God/liberal-conservative bullshit and get back to hard work and studying (hopefully backed by an immigration policy that still attracts the world’s best and brightest).

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | May 19, 2008 12:54 PM

The US is not falling behind in scientific research or technology, despite all of the doom sayers. All those statistics about all the engineers and scientists being trained in India and China are super inflated, since they consider repairmen and the like to be engineers. We still train more per capita.

Published Chinese research is generally laughed at, as it is almost always just a poor carbon copy of something that has already been published several times in the US or Europe.

Our Universities are still the best in the world on average, with the most funding, the best faculty, and the best research being produced. The only concern is in the increasing proportion of foreigners recieving PhDs at US Universities. But if we wouldn't be such dicks about how they are treated trying to get here/while they are here/after they graduate and want to stay, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

What, exactly, was the last great Chinese innovation that changed our lives? All they have shown the capacity for so far, in terms of both research and product, is an ability to copy other countries.

Posted by lfv | May 19, 2008 2:01 PM

That makes about as much sense as saying that the Gulf War was fought because the US wanted to secure its supplies of reindeer.

Posted by ajay | May 19, 2008 1:53 PM

You mean the 2nd Gulf War. So the Islamo-homo-jihadi-nazi-commie-fascists couldn't stop Santa. It's all part of the War on Christmas.

Posted by lfv | May 19, 2008 2:04 PM

Oh, and Don, if you're going to make sarcastic comments in Russian, at least get the grammar right.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | May 19, 2008 2:29 PM

Here's an illuminating article on Iceland that might provide an interesting addition to this debate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland

First paragraph:
Highest birth rate in Europe + highest divorce rate + highest percentage of women working outside the home = the best country in the world in which to live. There has to be something wrong with this equation. Put those three factors together - loads of children, broken homes, absent mothers - and what you have, surely, is a recipe for misery and social chaos. But no. Iceland, the block of sub-Arctic lava to which these statistics apply, tops the latest table of the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Index rankings, meaning that as a society and as an economy - in terms of wealth, health and education - they are champions of the world. To which one might respond: Yes, but - what with the dark winters and the far from tropical summers - are Icelanders happy? Actually, in so far as one can reliably measure such things, they are. According to a seemingly serious academic study reported in the Guardian in 2006, Icelanders are the happiest people on earth. (The study was lent some credibility by the finding that the Russians were the most unhappy.)

Posted by Mitch Schindler | May 19, 2008 2:45 PM

Re ajay's comment "Canada and the US together have 16% of the world's supply of tungsten, you maniac. The US was exporting tungsten during the Vietnam War."
----------
1) Most of the US deposits are not economical -- although that changes as the price rises, obviously. In theory, there's a shitload of gold dissolved in the world's oceans -- but have you seen anyone mining saltwater lately?

If you look at the USGS reference I cited, you see that 43% of our tungsten came from China in 2007. You will also see that China has most of the world's remaining reserves of tungsten. The USA has moved to large scale recycling/recovery of tungsten.

2) We have MINED ZERO amounts of tungsten ore in the USA in recent years -- although a mine did start up in California last year in response to China's move to curtail exports. Production data is classified.

3) The US exports during the Vietnam War was the USA drawing down her stockpile of tungsten to aid US domestic needs and the needs of her NATO allies AFTER China and Russia HALTED their exports of tungsten in 1963-- done to poke the USA and allies in the butt with a sharp stick.

The USA HAD that stockpile because Eisenhower had moved to make massive, COVERT imports of tungsten from Thailand and South Korea earlier. The import data was not declassified until a few years ago.

In 1951, USA imports of tungsten was only 3,650 metric tons. Then it soared -- 8,210 (1952), 13,100 (1953), 11,400 (1954), 9,910 (1955),
10,200 (1956), 6,730 (1957) before settling back down to around 3,000 metric tons in 1958 and 1959. See http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/tungsten.pdf

4)Here is what Eisenhower said justified intervention in Vietnam
(Source: Eisenhower's Remarks at Governors Conference, August 4, 1953, Public Papers of the Presidents, 1953, p. 540]
-----------
“Now let us assume that we lose Indo-China. If Indo-China goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula, the last bit of land hanging down there, would scarcely be defensible--and tin and TUNGSTEN that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming . . . . All of that weakening position around there is very ominous fo the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world hold the rich empire of Indonesia? . . . So when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance to the United States of America--our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indo-Chinese territory and from Southeast Asia.”

Read 'em and weep, Rubes.

Posted by Don Williams | May 19, 2008 2:57 PM

Gee, Wally. Mom says she can't afford to buy gasoline for the car. So, you better forget about Dad taking you and Mary Beth what's her name to the dance this Saturday night. Oh, and Eddy said nobody can afford gasoline. Maybe that's why Lumpy says we're in a recession. He's always saying stuff like that, even when grownups can afford gasoline. I guess if nobody can go anywhere ... we might really be in an economic decline. But that's okay; I got my bike. What more does a fella' need: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Ps. Excellent Hillary Clinton impersonation, That Hillary Show: www.rosemarywatson.com

Posted by Theodore Cleaver | May 19, 2008 3:04 PM

PS If any of you spent $180,000 gaining a BA in Modern History from Harvard, just remember that most Historians don't have security clearances.

Which is why intel people laugh their asses off at them.

That's a VERY long tradition, by the way. Cassius Dio, the Roman Historian, mentioned it over 2000 years ago. That what is officially reported to the public is often not what really happened.

Kinda puts those high-minded discussions in the Federalist in a different light, no?

Posted by Don Williams | May 19, 2008 3:08 PM

Over on my blog, I noted that Kevin Phillips has been predicting - wrongly - America's decline for over 20 years. A Nexis search turned up a bunch of articles in which he basically said the same thing going back to 1987.

In the caveats to which you refer, Phillips admits that "doomsayers in each nation, while eventually correct, were also premature." Yet, Phillips can’t bring himself to admit that he has been one of the chief purveyors of premature fearmongering. Nor can Phillips admit that he is now so invested in the story of American decline, that one suspects he hopes for it to come about. After all, what prophet doesn’t want to be proven right.

Posted by Stephen Bainbridge | May 19, 2008 3:26 PM

GDP (even per capita) is not a very telling statistic.

What constitutes an empire is buying power and debt-collecting power.

Poor monetary policy on the part of Greenspan et al has probably doomed us on both counts. Oh well. We'll just have to be France or England, then.

Posted by Luke | May 19, 2008 4:02 PM

Your mistake is in seeing "America" as a unitary entity rather than a continental empire. I daresay the risk for the U.S. is that it will break up into smaller independent states. This seems well within the realm of possibility; as the Russians discovered in Chechnya, the end of empire commonly brings with it a centrifugal tendency even in what had been thought to be the core territories. If that happens the standard of living in places like Arkansas and W.Va. that are heavily subsidized by federalism will take a serious nosedive.

Posted by Aaron | May 19, 2008 4:12 PM

Your mistake is in seeing "America" as a unitary entity rather than a continental empire. I daresay the risk for the U.S. is that it will break up into smaller independent states. This seems well within the realm of possibility; as the Russians discovered in Chechnya, the end of empire commonly brings with it a centrifugal tendency even in what had been thought to be the core territories. If that happens the standard of living in places like Arkansas and W.Va. that are heavily subsidized by federalism will take a serious nosedive.

Posted by Aaron | May 19, 2008 4:13 PM

Aaron,

Most countries/empires that fall apart do so along ethnic/religious lines. While the US clearly has its share of minorities, they are fairly diffused and in no state do they constitute a majority, nor do they have any historic claim so any area.

The only other kind of breakup that could occur would be along North/South Mason-Dixon line but that is a very very long shot.

Posted by MS | May 19, 2008 4:27 PM

As Iraq has discovered, 'ethnic' can mean just about anything. Given enough social and economic stress, "Republican" could easily become an ethnic designation. Moreover, you're assuming that existing boundaries are fixed and immutable, when the whole point of e.g. gerrymandering is that social groups tend to ignore the cartographers (that is, they're not actually diffused, just arranged in irregular patterns). See "Bible Belt," "Latin Crescent," and so on.

But for the sake of argument, let's take a very conventional definition of "ethnic" and "religious." Hawaii. Alaska. Utah. SoCal-NM-AZ-SoTX. At which point the imbalance of Federal subsidies becomes a very big and very open can of worms, leading wealthy areas to get very grumpy about putting tax dollars into the IRS kitty.

I'm just sayin, the bonds that hold our continental nation together are just as tenuous as those of any other terrestrial empire. It's the weakening of the central state that brings potential fissures (i.e. alternative modes of allegience) out into the open, they don't have a necessary existence of their own.

Posted by Aaron | May 19, 2008 5:13 PM

Hell, sometimes I think we're about to fall apart among religious lines right now. Remember that "Jesusland" map from a few years back?

For a moderately plausible SF take on this, see Allen Steele's "Coyote" novels.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 19, 2008 9:00 PM

Given the US's behavior in the last eight years, I think we deserve our loss of empire.

As a middle-aged person, I found it pretty funny that someone would say that China won't ever amount to anything more than just copying the US (and Europe). That was the conventional chauvinist wisdom in the sixties and seventies about Japan, and the seventies and eighties about South Korea. And it's pretty laughable to claim that people once worried about Japan taking over the world (and see how that turned out, they say) when, in fact, Japan has enormous global economic influence.

What has been driving the creation of American wealth for a long time has been high-technology and services, not manufacturing. Given a sufficient manufacturing base and enough wealth created from it, what really creates wealth in the modern global economy is high-tech and services. China has a billion people; they're swiftly becoming its chief asset (when before they were its chief liability). Anyone who doesn't think that China will displace the USA as the world's #1 economy by most measures is deluding themselves. And we won't be #2, then, either. We'll be, at most, #3, behind the EU.

The American Century is over. Deal with it.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 19, 2008 9:23 PM

"As Jared Diamond points out, Americans on average could consume a tiny fraction of the resources we do consume and still enjoy the same standard of living. Our packaging could be smaller, we could subsidize meat less (we already eat too much beef anyway, which makes us fat) and stop subsidizing corn, we could have our towns and cities better planned to encourage walking and public transportation, we could remember to turn the lights off when leaving a room, drive smaller cars with higher efficiency standards instead of SUVs, etc.
"

I like what Diamond has to say, but this frequently repeated claim is
bullshit. Yes, the US could consume say 50% of the resources it currently does and enjoy a slightly lower standard of living. Beyond that it starts to get a lot harder.
WTF do people making this claim think "standard of living" means? First thing you start doing is listing all the ways life will be different --- less meat, smaller houses, smaller cars etc.
At the end of the day these things will probably happen, but don't treat me like an idiot by claiming that a smaller house is "a higher standard of living" than a larger one.

I've lived in small apartments and large, and large is better. I've driven tiny cars and larger, and larger is nicer. I've lived with and without air conditioning, and with is nicer.

There is obviously a small stratum of US society occupying houses that are as large as they are as a signaling/positional device, not because they actually utilize the extra space. But this is a tiny fraction, and whatever they do has precious little real effect. For most people a smaller house is a step down in absolute, not just relative terms.

The fraction of US society driving cars larger than is necessary purely for maximum comfort is larger, but, once again, is in no sense the bulk of society. For most people, the car they currently possess, while of acceptable comfort, could be made more pleasant if it were a little larger.

Look, I don't deny that things will change in the direction of meaner lives with smaller houses and cars. People had the choice to live like kings or breed like rabbits, and they have made their choice; we all have to live with the consequences.
But don't run around pretending that none of this is going to affect people's comfort. This sort of bullshit lying seems to be endemic to liberal politics (see eg previous claims about the population of the homeless) and it generally results in the bulk of the population being really pissed off at you for treating them like idiots.

Posted by Maynard Handley | May 20, 2008 8:22 PM