The USA's World Status...

[Boerseun]

The United States have a de facto leadership position in the world. The US of A have rocketed to this position mostly thanks to the shift of world power after WWI & II. It maintains this position today because of an insanely inflated military, the annual cost of which is equal to themilitary budgets of the twenty next biggest armies in the world combined. Countries around the world are falling over their feet to please the US when trade talks are involved, and they normally get to sign deals that mostly favour the US. For instance, the US insists on open markets for its products, but will not lower its huge subsidies to its farmers, so that no Third World agricultural products can compete on the US market. The Third World being dependent mainly on agricultural output, this stops economic development right in its tracks. This is pretty dumb, because raising the Third World will create millions of new consumers.

 

Is the US' leadership in the world completely one-sided? Is it only enforced by the huge American war machine? And if it is, is it moral? How will the US stack up against India, China and Europe in the next 20-30 years? Have the US lost the momentum it gained after World War II? Looking at MTV for five minutes kinda makes one think that. Big empires tend to crack at the seams. What will crack the US? The national debt? The mass retirement of baby boomers? Illegal immigration? The lowering of educational standards? Greed? Materialism? Is it inevitable? Or will the rising of the future Superpowers inject the US with a new vigor? I suspect the US returning to the moon is exactly that - fear that China will outshine her shortly, where space is concerned. China have committed themselves to going to the moon by 2024, and then shortly after that, the US committed to 2018. Can the US function without potentially military competition - like another Superpower?

 

Also, is it right that countries have to toe the line as far as their internal politics are concerned because the US might not like it? Palestine's a case in point - where the US is trying to get rid of Hamas, who, by the way, was democratically elected. Does the sovereignty of a specific nation mean anything to the US when the US don't find their internal politics to its liking, and/or benefit? Do the US have the moral right to intervene in the internal politics of another country?

 

I think what we need is another Superpower, some checks and balances in this currently very unbalanced world. Someone to keep the US on its toes, and the US in turn will keep them on their toes. Sorta like NATO vs. Warschau Pact. Just without the communism bit. Or, if that particular country (say, China) can rise to the position with communism, then so be it. But without another Superpower in line, we might as well call it the United States of Earth and get it over with.

 

Sorry - lotsa questions. I'm more interested in your general thoughts along these lines.

[Jay-qu]

I started reading a great book about why Europe will lead the 21st century. I have no doubt that america will have great competition in remaining the dominant superpower on this rock. (if you consider them that.. what actually constitutes a superpower?)

[HydrogenBond]

America is still the greatest culture the world has known to date. The reason this is so is because it is a melting pot of all cultures. This gives US the advantage of cherry picking the best from each culture. The rest of the world appears bias toward US because American media dwells on the darkside of our culture and presents a distorted picture to the world. The fact is, the majority of Americans are not like that but are regular people, who are among the most generous in the world.

 

The American miltary may appear a little world threatening, but history shows that America was never imperilistic. If anything America has a history of kicking butt when the world gets chaotic and then spending vast amounts of resources to rebuild the destruction, helping countries get on the road to recovery and indendance, even from US.

 

Happy 4th of July.

[Boerseun]

The American miltary may appear a little world threatening, but history shows that America was never imperilistic.

Economic imperialism is any time just as bad, if not worse. Granted, Ford Corporation, Microsoft, General Motors etc. do in fact employ a hell of a lot of people in my country with factories etc., but shareholding is US-based and these companies tend to influence my government's position on quite a lot of issues. The flip side, of course, is that when my country lays down a minimum wage that might increase Ford's (for instance) labour cost, they can at any time decide to move their operation to another Third World country with slacker labour laws. In other words, they would love to run a below-minimum wage sweatshop. So, my country dances to their tune in order to prevent unemployment. This isn't necessarily the intended result of the hundreds of thousands of faceless shareholders in these corporations, rather, it might be a Darwinian kind of a 'survival of the fittest' as applied to international corporations. The fact that it's American corporations doing what's in their best interests doesn't go unnoticed in the Third World, however.

If anything America has a history of kicking butt when the world gets chaotic and then spending vast amounts of resources to rebuild the destruction, helping countries get on the road to recovery and indendance, even from US.

True. Few countries in the world could have achieved the industrial brilliance of the US both pre- and post-Pearl Harbour that was in fact decisive in the War's outcome. Henry Kaiser and his Liberty Ships come to mind. This is indeed praiseworthy. But faced with the same situation today, who'd best be able to turn their industry to a single-minded aim of winning a war? The US, or China?

[Mercedes Benzene]

I agree with everything Racoon put in his last entry!:shrug:

[Freddy]

Trade agreements favor the US someone wrote. In fiscal 2005 the US trade deficit was a record $800 billion and it is expected to reach a new record this fiscal year. With favorable trade agreements like this I would hate to see unfavorable ones.

 

The European Union will be the next superpower to clash with the US economically and possiblly militarily.

 

However, do not count the US out just yet as it is a changeable society and can change course. November will bring about change from a rogue president and a lacky Congress to a more world friendly Congress that will put the brakes on Bush's Iraq mistake.

[Qfwfq]

One thing that I get weary of is the vast over-touting of America, and not only by Americans.

 

US schoolkids are certainly brought up patriotically, and not only at elementary school. So were French ones, especially in the past when the EU had taken less hold, but there was a difference. While the French were limited to the assumption that anything French is consequently great, the US attitude goes even further: if something is great, it therefore must be American...

America is still the greatest culture the world has known to date. The reason this is so is because it is a melting pot of all cultures. This gives US the advantage of cherry picking the best from each culture.

It doesn't make each of these things "American Culture" rather than that of origin, a melting pot creates a cosmopolitain environment. Creating a new, distinct culture out of it is a somewhat different thing. I would hardly call pizza or tacho an American thing, nor Halloween or Santa Claus.

 

Jazz, based on the musical heritage of the African slaves, definitely is and so is Country'n'Western, which is based on the style of Celtic and especially Irish Folk music. I'd call these American Culture as much as Poe or Twain, and the tradition of Thanksgiving.

 

But faced with the same situation today, who'd best be able to turn their industry to a single-minded aim of winning a war? The US, or China?

Referred to WWII, I'd say it was the Brits. Vastly more than the Americans. Absolutely no comparison.

[HydrogenBond]

Actually, Americans are not allowed to feel patriotic. The liberals are trying to make Americans feel guilty for all the woes of the world, while never pointing out the good side of the coin. The students are not allowed to say the pledge of alligance to the flag because it contains a reference to God. Instead, they are given the right to burn the flag.

 

The cultural result is an every man for themselves mentality, i.e, free enterprise. American business is not beholden to the American worker or national intersts but to profits. They will farm work overseas for business advantage even if it means loss jobs in the US, The reason this is so is that lobbyists from business and special interests influence the American govenment behind the scenes. The policy does not always reflect the will of the people but nevertheless creates a major impact on world affairs. There are also international lobbyist in the US affecting international policy. In many thrid world countries foreign middle men and leaders are gaining considerable wealth at the expense of their own national interests.

[Qfwfq]

The cultural result is an every man for themselves mentality, i.e, free enterprise.

Gee, I thought that was rather the idea behind it from the start. (?:eek:?)

[InfiniteNow]

My thoughts are basically as follows:

 

What goes up, must come down. Likely to be assisting in this process: China, nukes, and our own arrogance.

[Freddy]

Actually, Americans are not allowed to feel patriotic. The liberals are trying to make Americans feel guilty for all the woes of the world, while never pointing out the good side of the coin. The students are not allowed to say the pledge of alligance to the flag because it contains a reference to God. Instead, they are given the right to burn the flag.

 

The cultural result is an every man for themselves mentality, i.e, free enterprise. American business is not beholden to the American worker or national intersts but to profits. They will farm work overseas for business advantage even if it means loss jobs in the US, The reason this is so is that lobbyists from business and special interests influence the American govenment behind the scenes. The policy does not always reflect the will of the people but nevertheless creates a major impact on world affairs. There are also international lobbyist in the US affecting international policy. In many thrid world countries foreign middle men and leaders are gaining considerable wealth at the expense of their own national interests.

 

I am an American and no other American has ever said I cannot feel patriotic.

 

Could you point out one public school in America that bans the Pledge Of Allegiance? Personally, I am against the "Under God" insertion of 1954.

 

What is the law, is that no one can force anyone to recite it.

[Qfwfq]

Someone should look into that aspect!

I'm not here to deny some real pros of the US, but some valid points have been made. I see it very much as a matter of mentality.

 

By analogy, one could well praise Bill Gates for his philanthropic undertakings but, A, he can jolly well afford it and, B, it doesn't remove some good objections to the manner in which he accumulated such a fortune.

[HydrogenBond]

Another way to look at this is to go back when America was the envy of the world. After WWII comes to mind. The America of that time was the ideal in the eyes of the world. A big and powerful miltary gentle giant helping other countries maintain freedom. The family was strong, there was one nation under god, we were a melting pot, golden age of science, prosperity, good work ethics, masculine culture where almost all men had miltary discipline, one income familes, high goals and ideals, national pride. This led to the baby boomers who were the most politically active and knowledgeable youth of all time. They pushed for change while on drugs, sex and rock and roll. Here we are today.

[TheFaithfulStone]

we were a melting pot

 

Yeah, everything was so black and white in the 1950's.

 

TFS

[Qfwfq]

Great wealth, or "New Money" is always objected too, in terms of manner accumulated. Until after a few generations have passed. Thats basic sociology 101.

Indeed this is quite obvious but I'm afraid you missed my point. You are presumeably answering with my Bill Gates analogy in mind, an analogy is only that and my meaning was somewhat broader than doubting the manner of accumulation of US wealth.

 

In any case, the US hasn't been quite the land of plenty as in yesteryear. Yeah, when it was a vast continent of unexploited resources and still few inhabitants to exploit them, and before modern consumerism mentality, those were the days. Fat farm produce for the table, mineral and timber wealth in seemingly inexhaustable abundance for producing goods, of course people were rich and not just the ones coming out at the top. As these proportions change and finance is more and more a matter of smoke and paper schemes, you might find yourself walking in the penthouse of a skyscraper but with the sensation that all the building's floors are made of little more than air.

 

I'm not saying there aren't ulterior motives involved with US foreign aid, but if the check cashes...

Well, personally, I have dodged offers of consistent cash aid from a parent because I could smell ulterior motives.

 

There are many examples in which the check pays, but...

 

Lawmakers increased aid to Israel by $83 million, providing it with $2.3 billion in funding.

Now that, ever since '48, has had ulterior motives!

[pgrmdave]

The United States is not perfect, nor is any other nation. From what I know of other nations, I'd say that the US is the place I'd rather be (although I don't know about too many others, I've heard Austrailia is nice, but I don't know about their government). The United States will always be a powerful nation, simply because of its size. The only current nations which could compete with us are those which are close in size - Russia, China, India - and those who have banded together - the European Union. However, the EU is too fractured at the moment to really compete. China and India could become superpowers if they choose to, they have the resources to do so, and the military power. However, I don't think they will be able to completely dispose of America's power simply because our power comes not from our government, but from our corporations. Our government does a lot to maintain our power, but it's really the corporations that are able to spread our culture, and our goods, throughout the world. Until corporations from other countries start to overtake American companies in American style businesses, I won't be too worried.

 

However, we have already seen what happens when this occurs - look at the dying American automobile industry. If another country becomes a world power and if it happens the way I expect it to, then we will see the automobile industry fiasco happening in every part of America.

[Qfwfq]

Its called Globalization.

 

Other countries are perfect. Other countries know whats best. Let China lead the world; Communism works. :)

 

Let me know when everyone else runs out of their abundance of unexploited resources. apparently they're all over Europe. And then tell us whos doing the exploiting.

Your sarcasm is wasted Racoon, you are simply skewing my points. Globalization is a way of exploiting other countries, a newer method than the colonialism of past times, and where did I ever suggest Europe as currently being in the situation I described for America in the past, the land of plenty?

 

I had started out with remarks about mentality and how some people view the US but I guess it's no use, you just didn't get the point. :shrug: