Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to assume that if America wasn't 'in charge' in the world, we would all be oppressed and wouldn't lead the life we do. I believe that many people need to let go of their ethnocentrism, and perhaps consider that the people who founded the United States came from Western European nations, and that all those nations have some period in their history of oppression, human rights abuses, etc., along with the United States (which currently wages an illegal war against the Iraqi people, and has committed many atrocities that we simply don't hear much about). This isn't to say that these nations (including the United States) aren't made up of people with good intentions, but that the powerful people in any nation will do what they must to advance their interests. This is much easier to do when we de-humanize people of the rest of the world.

History has shown, time and again, that everything runs in cycles. Civilizations rise and fall, and many of the greatest civilizations of the past were vastly larger (in terms of land size and percentage of the world's population) than the United States is today. All of these nations (or nation-like groups, such as the Mongolians) had some aspect in their military abilities that allowed them dominance over those they fought. Some factors in the Roman empire which lead to their dominance was their advanced war machines, strong economic structures and a strong central government. However, even the Romans were eventually overthrown by advancing 'barbaric' tribes such as the Saxons in the British Isles, etc.

We cannot predict what will happen to the United States in the future; there are simply far too many factors that will determine where dominance lies in the world. However, there are several problems with the current structure of Western society that will certainly weaken it over time. Our rates of consumption through our capitalist society will certainly cause our culture to collapse, as our current rates of consumption cannot continue. Currently, (using the method developed by Mathis Wackernagel) people in high-income nations need 6.4 hectares of productive land for each person, but there is only 2.2 hectares of ecologically productive land for each person worldwide. This means that we cannot sustain our lifestyle without crushing the quality of life for humanity worldwide.

We may be taught that Western society is a meritocracy (1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. 2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced), but this simply isn't true. We are taught to believe that if you work hard, despite your circumstances, you will 'succceed' in life. If you think about this carefully, you will begin to realize just how untrue this is. We still employ a system of elitism in which the majority of wealth is inherited, and it isn't what you do, it's who you know that will get you somewhere. Of course, this isn't true in all situations, but truly, the wealthy get wealthier, and the poor stay poor. However, the poor in our western nations do not undergo the extreme conditions of poor people worldwide. This poverty correlates directly with our capitalist modes of consumption.

The IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World bank are largely responsible for much of the poverty worldwide. Please, this explanation is EXTREMELY simplified: After WWII, many nations had collapsed economically, and the United States emerged truly as a world power. Due to this, the IMF and World Bank lent out billions of dollars to many nations to jump-start their economies. Unfortunately, (and this still happens today), the economic system that these institutions tried to impose simply didn't work like they had in the United States (the US had grown into it's economy, slowly developing over time and the people of the United States adapted to it). Simply stated, the loans didn't work. Now these nations are all in debt to institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, and since the United States has such strict labour, wage, and safety laws (compared to peripheral nations), these institutions basically set the standards under which the people of peripheral nations operate. Needless to say, this system has exploited them and basically ensures that standards are kept extremely low in these nations. Peripheral nations need economic investment to avoid defaulting on their loans, so they must encourage investment by lowering environmental, labour, and safety standards. This keeps poverty alive in the world.

It is sad that we truly produce enough food in this world to feed every person on the planet, but with a dominant capitalist system put forth by the most powerful nations, food simply goes where the money is. Not to mention the thousands of acres of land that are used for cash crops instead of food production. Interestingly, our modern agriculure system is actually very inefficient when compared to swidden agriculture. The United States (and other western nations) could learn a lot from Cuba, which currently supports an extemely stable and sustainable agriculture system. Cuba hit what is called 'peak oil' after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and basically had to learn to operate with a fraction of it's former petroleum imports. Currently, we are close to hitting (or have already hit) peak oil in Western society, and changes must be made or our lives as we know them will collapse.

Corporations are running the world as we know it, and I believe that as long as profits are the primary motivation, the world will continue to be bathed in pointless wars, poverty, hunger and evironmental devastation. the US government actually requires by law that corporations' must consider their 'bottom line' before anything else. If you would like more information on corporations, watch 'The Corporation,' a Canadian made documentary.

I won't even begin to explain the time bomb that China is. With it's huge population, and absolutely exploding growth, we cannot begin to imagine the destruction possible to our world if they adapt lifestyles like the United States. Fortunately, we currently have the ability to change our system, but it must happen soon or the future of humanity (not just the United States) is in serious trouble.

No, we are not. Japan and Europe have speedier networks and better Telecom services. Japan and Europe make better cars. Japan, Korea and Taiwan make nearly all of the worlds first-rate consumer electronics. American heavy industry is in crisis after 3 decades of massive off-shoring and ill-advised industrial policy (presided over by both Republican and Democratic administrations alike).

Heatlthcare is often pointed-to as the place where America solidly leads. It is true that the world's kings and princes flock to our cancer centers to be cured. But, the American healthcare industry costs twice as much as any other in the industrialized world and yet American life expectancy is ranked 37th or 38th. We have built a playground where only the super-wealthy can expect good results. The American public knows there is a problem, but our "leaders" tell us that government-run healthcare will be an unmitigated disaster. This is despite the evidence from all over the world that it is both cost-effective and equitable, and ultimately the only thing that keeps high-level economies competitive.

The list goes on.

America has not been #1 in years in many respects, but its people are not told the truth by its corporate-controlled media. America is not the #1 economy in the world... that honor now belongs to the European Union. America has one of the worst secondary educational systems in the industrialized world. (America still leads in the number and quality of its universities, but a wave of post-9/11 xenophobia is quickly ruining even that.)

America is firmly #1 in the number of people in prison, both in absolute terms as well as a percentage of our population. This quite ironic given how often the essential "goodness" of the American people is praised by our so-called leaders. Our people are no more evil than any other, we have simply built a perverse system of economics that rewards building more prisons and making sure they are full-up. Our judicial system obliges by imposing ever-harsher punishments for ever-more banal (and often victimless) crimes.

There will come a moment in the not too near future where the U.S. will be revealed to be the paper-tiger that it is. It doesn't have to be something as destructive as a war to reveal the truth, although war is often the culprit in this sort of revelation to a national psyche. In 1957, the sudden launch of Sputnik shocked the nation out of its post-war scientific complacency. I wonder what that moment will be in this new century?

Corporate-controlled media? I have always wondered where that term came from and exactly what does it mean. AFAIK, the first news paper was made not because the owner wanted to say the truth to the whole nation, but because he wanted to make money.

For me, news!= thruth, I have never though about it that way, although I know there are many ignorant people. Rather news are a point of view based on real-life events.

You know what I think is what is really upsetting to others outside America looking in? Is that they see all this potential, and to their eyes at least, is squandered.

Interestingly enough, the United States (and possibly Canada and Russia, due to large tracts of arable land and raw materials) has some of the best potential to be completely self sufficient with the right technological advancements, mostly reducing dependence on foreign oil through solar, wind, nuclear, and other forms of energy. The US has an enormous capability to provide a high quality and variety of food, raw materials in wood and minerals, and maintains a relatively stable climate-all else being equal. In and of itself, the US, with its large size and low population to area ratio, has the potential to be extremely resilient to outside pressures. Other countries, such as China, India, or even some European countries would have a very difficult time as being as sufficient as the US could be.

The issue is that the US has decided to NOT be self-sufficient, in whole or in part, and has become a strict consumer society, exporting at most foodstuffs and some manufactured goods that cannot compete with the cheaper goods from China, Germany, and Japan.

Now, I'm not saying the US should become Strict Isolationists...but a more introspective look into their own behavior could cause a major shift in US policy and direction- most likely for the better for all.

And so it shall die and be reborn again. This time as Americanus Imperium. Ruled by me but I am now accepting applications for regional governors.

Quote:[is not a old nation because] England (Parliamentary government in 19th
century) no longer a real monarchy

I cannot beleive this rubbish (no offence meant). England has not been sucessfully invaded since 1066. The power of parilment was established at the end of the Civil War(1649).

All that this shows is the shift of power. Not a revolution there was no violence, nothing had changed for the working man and the same people where incharge after the event. Thus its still the same naion

Hell the Queen still has the right to prevent certain laws going though. But she will never use this because the people would go Bonkers.

If I remember correcly america was not independent until 1783. And if we want to count the violent change of power (The american civil war) then that is updated to 1865 hm no I still can't see how it is an older nation than Britain. And it certainily isn't 'culuturally' older than Europe.

And can YOU american stop saying 'our Europe' and 'we still have X contry'. Because despite Americas power, It DOES NOT OWN EUROPE.

"O Britainia
Britainia rules the wave
And we shall never never
ever will be slaves"

Well it could be argued that England as the Kingdom is known was dissolved for a short period of time since it was a Republic during the time of Cromwell after the civil war. However the monarchy was restored and interestingly enough and by following the royal family tree the current Queen and to include the future heirs, Charles and William you can trace an unbroken bloodline between them and William the 1st in 1066.

We have nearly always had a corporate-owned media, but I refer to the current state of affairs where the editorial boards do not say or do *anything* that would call into question a corporatist agenda. That is not a statement of ownership, it is a statement of editorial control.

For instance, globalization is nearly always presented as an "unstoppable, unpreventable" process nearly everywhere in the American mainstream media when in reality it is anything but. In reality, most countries create a system of tariffs, trade-treaties and export controls that somehow represent the interests of their ruling elites. Sometimes these look "protectionist," other times not. However, if you ask the average American what globalization looks like, they will have absolutely no conception that there is realpolitik involved. All they know is that if they are involved in making things, their jobs are going to be shipped to a country with 1/10th the wage scale and there is not a damned thing that they can do about it. Oh, and their tax dollars will be used to make it *easier* for their jobs to be moved.

In any case, this is just an example of how distorted the media presentations of major issues has become here in the U.S. of A.

Up until now, we have nominally had a system of "professional" journalism which held that objective views of the news could be presented largely unbiased by politics. To preserve this "objectivity" ethic, there was the expectation that editorial boards who were responsible for content needed to exercise such control independently of the desires of the owner. While this system did not work perfectly in practice, it was actually pretty good and it did allow for some real truth to get out about Vietnam, Watergate, etc.

Today, truth is *much* harder to come by, especially in regards to the interests of the corporate elites here in America.

There are people here in the U.S. that feel the same way...

Agreed. The most dangerous outgrowth of American economic policy is the elimination of redundancy in the global economic system. We have allowed, indeed encouraged, companies to isolate their sources and production chains to the fewest possible sources and supply lines. This requires sophisticated JIT systems to keep everything humming along and is incredibly efficient when it works. For instance, nearlly all of the worlds buttons are made in a single small town in China. Nearly all flat screen displays are made along a single coastline in Asia. The problem is, the world is a messy place. Storms happen. Quakes happen. Wars happen. Disruption is the norm. When a quake happened a few years ago in Asia, flat-panel production came to a halt for a month. This rippled-through the manufacturing chain for laptops and it had a measurable effect on prices worldwide.

The removal of redundancy is the prime goal of globalization: move production to the places where it is most cost-effective by some set of measures. While this can produce benefits, we are seeing that it is building a house of cards that can produce massive economic misery when it falls due to normal disruption.

China will be the dominant Power by sometime during the 22nd Century and will remain so for several hundred years, US & Russia being next in line, but not that far behind, albeit behind China they will most certainly be. China's population and gargantuan natural resources that dwarf even Russia's untapped resources, will ensure that this happens. A three-Power Political super-model dominanting the Planet aka the Novel "1984". The background geo-political theme of that book of three large Powers on the Planet, was the serious inevitable prediction behind the Novel, the narrative was just window dressing. Its just the precise time frame that was (and still is) unknown.

The only spanner in the works will be if China can't maintain its current Technological and Economic growth rate. In any event, it will happen, if not 22nd Century (and I think that is more likely), most certainly by the 23rd Century, its inevitable, and been regarded as such for a long time.

The Dominant Power on the Planet goes in cycles as History shows, the US does not have the natural resources to buck that historical trend in comparison to China


And the Money goes where the Natural Resources are. In the 22nd/23rd Century that will inevitably be China. Technology lead at present is irrelevant. We went from horse drawn cavalry to the start of the Space Era in one hundred years, what do you think will happen in the next hundred years with the exponential growth in Technology and discovery (a rate of technology improvement far far superior to that of the 20th Century)

In fact if you can find a Betting Shop stupid enough to give you an inflation proofed bet on China, and guarantee a method of payout to your great great great grandchildren, bung a thousand bucks on it - your future generation will love you for it, because you will make them an absolute Fortune

Regards
Zy

Yep, true, but consider the fact that because of the Cold War, many of these technologies were kept classified for decades before they were released into the general public.

That was why there was such a sudden technological boom after the end of the Cold War, with the arrival of the Internet, PC, Email, etc all at once.

I am chinese myself, but really, i don't want to see china being the next super power. There is something that westerners forgets about us asians. That is, we are very slow to forgive, never forgets past wrongs, and oblivious to what other people are doing in their own households. What does this translate to, well, if there were any humiliation done to a nation by another one, it will make sure the other one pays its due. After all losing face is not something that we asians takes lightly. I can say asians, because this is not confined to chinese, just look at why Pearl harbour was invaded in the first place.

Why we don't forget easily, well, if japan really forget the humililation suffered at the hands of the U.S in the 1800s, i am referring to U.S warships arriving at the shores of Japan and forcing them to open her doors to trade. Well..Japan would not have bomb the crap out of peral harbour. When Hong Kong was handed over back to China, throughout china in the months of july 1997, a movie of the opium war was on nation wide re-release. That just shows that china really have not forgotten the defeat by the British. And we don't really care what happens in other nations, we just let them be. I don't think it really matter whether china is a democracy, run by a dictator or is a ultra hard communist back in Mao's time. Well..all the talk about the middle east between israel and palenstien, the wars in the balkans, the injustices occuring in south asian countries, latin american countries or where ever, you never see south korea, japan or china, china-taiwan rasing a fuss over it. Who raise the biggest fuss, well the west. A lot of asian countries have democracy or are even economically wealthy, but really, their concept of human rights are not from the same page as from the west. This is not to say that human rights as a concept is non existent in the east, but rather, because of cultural differences, certain aspect of what constitute human rights are viewed differently. To say that human rights are universal, one has to ask, "universal" according to whom's definition, and of course, that goes without saying, it is from the west.

Actually the main reason why technological advances arises when there is a war is because that's the only time a government is willing to spend lots of money on it. War has nothing to do with technological advances, it's just a question of willingness to invest money and resources in research.

Uh, no. Still a monarchy, in law if not in power. Our government stretches back rather further than 200 years...

I'm not going to make predictions about the global future. However, I think an important part of what makes the US a powerful country is its productive workforce. Check out this BBC article:

WWW Link

I'll copy and paste the relevant graph below, depicting the yearly wealth produced by the average citizen of each region:

USA $63,885
Middle East $21,910
Global average $19,834
LatAm & Caribbean $18,908
North Africa $12,967
East Asia $12,591
SE Asia & Pacific $9,419
South Asia $7,998
Sub-Saharan Africa $5,062

Source: ILO Estimates

There are probably a number of reasons why this is true (education, work resources, work conditions, availability and quality of equipment, etc.). Some of these reasons are products of our system of government and our open market policy, others a result of our abundant resources and geographical diversity, and some a product of our multinational backgrounds and generally educated population. I believe this sets us apart from many countries, especially the BRIC bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).

Additionally, the increasing cost of energy may make it less financially viable to import products as opposed to accepting domestic substitutes.

The article also claims the "US figure is boosted by Americans working more hours per year than workers in most developed countries." I don't think that's an unfair skew, since hours in a workweek is a legitimate cultural difference, and not an artificial modifier.

China is almost a certainty. America will remain a super power untill a worse economic crush causes a revolution (tis what me thinks). And India is also becoming more powerfull, although it's comming under the rader due to the press talking mostly about china.

England is too small and unless we reform the British Empire again (he he he) then all we will be is the little guy wispering into the ears of, to be frank, the bully that is america.

I hope we become a bigger part of europe and distance ourselves away from america (I dislike the political choices not the people). But if Tony Blair is to be in charge of the EU surely we are all doomed.

Very true. Necessity is the mother of all inventions.



Sadly, History is written by the Victor. The rules are set by the ones in charge, the ones with the power. And after World War 2, it was "the west" who had the most power. And also after the cold war, it retained much of its power. History say Britain complety defeat the Chinese in that opium war. China was losing much ground to the Japanese during WW2, and the Japanese ended up signing an unconditional surrender (they got owned). And think about it, the US and its allies won a war against two very strong opponents in two differents fronts. The Japanese had the strongest Navy, the Germans had the strongest Army, yet the Allies won a complete victory against the Axis. Thus the west emerged as the undisputed victor, and that also gave them a lot of pride and arrogance, this was reflected in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Have you read where the articles come from like AP wire services in a lot of the newspaper articles?There are what 3 major news services,Time Warner being one of them?
There are words the media will not use like communism to describe a regime.There are stories they won't cover like the 12 lane highway being built from Laredo Mexico to Canada.No matter what you think about it,such a thing would have a major impact on the US.

Think about this,because of corporate power the third world will never experience a free market economy like their was at the inception of the United States.What is needed is small businesses running in a true free market system so that the third world can build up their own economies.But a lot of countries spend so much of their economy simply paying the debt they owe to the world bank instead of on education and such for their own countries.
The United States should focus on strengthening the Western Hemisphere and also giving more political and economic power to the poor in South America.How can you have a democracy when only 3% of the people own 90% of the land like in some South American countries.
Because of the power and desires of corporate America and corporate (fill in the blank) this will never take place,as they wish to consolidate power instead of giving it to others.

unless the us decides not to pay the debt and f them over milatarily. and chine depends on the US for food. 30% of chine fods come from the US so chine willl always be dependent on america

LOL id like to see the EU try and take out the US militarily we kick ass. We spend 4% of our GDP on national defense while the EU spends 1.5% umm i wonder who will win?????
Best troops anywhere is in America. why should i pay for somebody else to have health care. people should plan ahead, and if they dont they die weed out the sick.

Particular governments/nation-states/dynasties may not last more than a few centuries, but history shows that powerful regions of the world remain powerful for long periods of time...

China has been a unified culture for almost 4 millenia. On this time scale, only recently has China lost its edge as the premier center of technology and industry. Europe has also been a premier center of technology and power since the rise of Hellenistic culture...power simply has shifted from Greece to Italy, and from Italy to North-Western Europe. Germany, Italy, the UK (England), and France are the richest and most advanced major European powers and as regions have been so for over a millenia...

The current goverment of the United States may not last forever, but the region of the US will remain powerful for a very, very long time...

Nations like China, Brazil, and India may be catching up in "official" factors like GDP, but their infastructure is nothing compared to that of the west. These nations depend on cheap labor and raw resources, things that can be controlled or replaced by the west...

Arguments that suggest the United States really doesn't do much for the world are ludicruous. There is no doubt that the Brits and the Soviets are the true heroes in fighting Hitler, and the Chinese, Dutch, and Aussies took a lot from the Japanese, but it was unquestionably the American military that brought Japan to its knees. While Europeans (particulary Scandinavians) give more financial aid by percent, the US by far gives more than any nation in actual amounts. Is it enough? No, but millions of people who eat everyday because of us are going to take whatever they can get. The United States has proven in Vietnam and Iraq that it is willing to play World Police. The point isn't whether the US should be in others' business...the point is that the US is the only nation with such extensive military power. Nations like China can field lots of troops, but only America has the navy and air force to police the world. You all may not like America using its guns (and rightly so), but no one else has the ability to play the role of World Police. The US spends between 500-600 billion dollars on its military (depending on what you define as defense spending); if you ranked all the nations on their military expidentures, the US spends more than the next 50 nations combined. While part of that is due to a strong American currency, removing the US from world politics would radically change how things happen in the global arena...and if the US doesn't matter, then no individual nation or region matters, because no one has as much influence as the US...

The only people who think America is a leader in everything are usually American nationalists...however, the America WILL remain extremely powerful (even if it's not the best) for centuries if not millenia to come...no other empire, kingdom, or nation in history has put a man on the moon, a coke and big mac in every city, and taken over multiple nations simply for the sake of giving them back (France, Japan, and Iraq). The industrial, cultural, technological, and military power of the US rival the greatest empires of history...I don't expect you to like America, but the truth is America isn't going anywhere for quite a while, so either deal with it, or go to Canada...

And by the way...

For those of you who think America is worthless and means nothing, shame on you for being ignorant...

But for all of you American nationalists that cling dearly to capitalism and imperialism, may God pity your souls...

If they're going to die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population.



Just in case you didn't already know, you already pay for the poor's health-care in America. Its called the "emergency room," and its free if you have no insurance. The cost is passed onto the rest of us in the form of higher insurance premiums and service costs.

Personally, I'd rather people did not have to make decisions like "should I buy groceries or antibiotics for my kid?" That way, they don't cost us $1200 in an emergency room visit because they can't afford to medicate themselves for $120 (doctor visit + antibiotic).

Ooooh.... Oooooh... I know! Let's save the $1200! Lets just let those lazy children go without treatment! That way we can have epidemics in our cities and our schools and the rest of us non-poor (who can plan ahead) now must live in gated-communities so the indolent riff-raff don't breathe on us!

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

NOT.

I did not mean to imply violent revolution as the means of governmental change. As far as the parliament of England it is not the same structure as it was in the past. It has much greater power and the Monarchy has been regulated to mostly ceremonial. Thus a change in Government. Not all revolutions are violent.


Since the Durham Report of 1839, the white-settled colonies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had been virtually independent of Britain. The Statute of Westminster, passed in November, 1931, removed much legal inferiority not addressed in 1839. The independence of the Dominions was now established. The Crown remained as a symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth .
This was a totally new arrangement and thus constituted a new government.

The Imperial Economic Conference met in Ottawa, Canada in July 1932 to hash out the problems of Dominion economic policies and to settle the matter of their exports to Britain

As for the American civil war, the Union survived and was reunited under the still existing govenment that the "rebels" broke away from. There was no change in the structure of The American government as there was with The British government shown above. (1931)<--- A totally new government structure, a complete change in the relationship between the people and the governing authorities. A NEW GOVEVERNMENT, A NEW NATION

Oh and on a side note, we in The United States often make fun of our neighbor to the north Canada, but let us make this very very clear to everyone, we can mess with Canada all we want! but if anyone ever thinks they can bully the Canadians around make damn sure you’re not facing north cause their "family" down south will crush you faster than The Iraqi army surrendered in the first gulf war. No one, not even the Queen, well, ok us and The Queen, can trash talk those fine people of the great white north, but not anyone else.

And you will notice that when the s**t hits the fan we know that Canada will always have our back! Even when we are dead wrong, we can count on Canada to force us into doing what is right in the end! No country on earth has as good a friend on its boarder. We do not have a single solder armed and facing Canada and I doubt we ever will, they are too good of a people for us to worry about them back stabbing us.

Funny note: by definition of some international laws concerning solvarenty, The USA & Canada engage in acts of war on each other about once a week. (U.S. Air Force buzzing Canadian Air Force Base and they doing it to us) These are considered acts of war by law! But Canada can get away with it. They earned the pillage of declaring war on us and telling us to shut up.. This is of course off set by the horrific war crimes of Canada toward the people of the usa, you sent us the Baldwins! You bastar&&&!