Hacker News Reader

Except for China. They actually have a very similar concept of destiny and mission.

I think the issues with China are going to be much more practical. They remind me a lot of the Soviet Union. A closed society that is very effective at giving the appearance of prosperity, while under the covers things are very different. They'll be able to keep it up for a decade or two, but over time the whole thing crumbles as the base was never truly well built.

Our biggest advantage lies in the risk taking aspects of our culture. We're a people that celebrates the type of risk that leads to true innovation. The cool thing: It's not just the U.S. anymore. Europe has caught on as well.

I do think the United States is going to weaken (relatively) in the coming decade. We'll still be a world power, but I think we'll be sharing that with a re-awakened Europe.

"It's not just the U.S. anymore. Europe has caught on as well."

Europe has taken on U.S. style risk taking? I have honestly not heard or read this elsewhere. Can you elaborate?

Well you'll find that a history of being the "superpower(s)" and then wasting it all by bombing the crap out of ourselves results in a slightly different point of view in the world (from the EU).

Empire building was Europe's "sense of mission and purpose in the world" we made the natives "civilised". It was our belief of divine right and our ridiculous optimism in regards to war and "glory" (it will be over by Christmas) that led (in part) to our downfall.

> It's why everyone wants to be American

Pardon?

Seriously, do you actually believe that?

Definitely not everyone 'wants to be an American'.

The only people that 'want to be American' in very large numbers are those that currently are below the standard of life that America offers, and plenty of those people would still be quite happy to be European, Japanese or even Australian.

As for your sense of mission and purpose in the world, that might be more of a problem than a part of the solution.

Hey, whaddya mean "even" Australian? ;)

I agree with you otherwise, though I'd remove Japanese from that list. The streets of Tokyo are not exactly paved with gold these days.

Even as in about as far away from everywhere else as you can get ;)

No offense meant, I know quite a few people from Australia and without exception they're really nice.

Far away from where? I'm 6 hours from Singapore, 7 to HK or 9 to Tokyo, and - more importantly - they're mostly straight up so there's no jetlag. I think you live far away from everything! ; )

No offence taken, of course!

Paris 4 hours by car, Amsterdam, 2, Brussles 3, Berlin 6 ;)

I should come one day to visit Australia.

Wow. I don't know where I got confused but for some reason, I thought you were Canadian. Oops. I love Europe, though - been to all of those cities except Brussels.

Let me know when you do make it down under - beers are on me!

I've lived in Canada for 5 years, I still have a 'token' paper presence there but I'll wind that down this year because I definitely won't be going back.

Also plenty of my domain names are still registered to the Toronto office.

So that's really not your fault :)

I live in the South of the Netherlands right now.

Maybe he's a New Zealander?

Friedman is one of the worst sources of opinion I've ever read. The World Is Flat (which is, admitedly, his only substantial work I've read cover to cover) is filled with unwarranted conclusions and groundless generalizations and altogether horrible metaphors. I've learned to just tune out when he's mentioned.

yea really. the original story cites him as a middle east expert... who cheered and approved of the invasion of iraq. now that's a record to be proud of.

EDIT: i do agree with him though that the US should invest in sustainable energy.

I found The World is Flat to be a useful insight into conservative economic thinking. I also interpreted it as an attempt to persuade the conservative political and economic base to take a more global look at their activities using their own language, rather than as an accurate treatise on globalization.

In that context, I was able to get past his obeisance to the corporate superpowers of America and his other inaccuracies, and see points that may be valuable. Even though I frequently disagree with their opinions, Friedman and another conservative, George Will, are two of my favorite editorialists. Maybe the fact that I'm neither liberal nor conservative contributes to my enjoyment of their writing.

> It's our sense of mission and purpose in the world. It's something that nobody else has. Only we have it because it's in our cultural fabric.

Really, you believe that stuff? That sounds like some kind of propaganda or something you would tell a child. Do you think the Chinese tell each other "We have no purpose in the world, we are a silly nation, we'll never amount to anything."? On the contrary!

Yes, we are what we are because of culture, but mostly because we won WWII, and happened to have lots of nukes, tanks, ships.

It's our sense of mission and purpose in the world. It's something that nobody else has.

Whether that's true now is debatable in my opinion. I think the American dream has been perverted into a lust for enhanced mediocrity. People where I live seem to want to get a job with good benefits, a decent house, and a nice TV, so they can just get through their lives by watching sports and reality shows. Everyone wants to be the best middle-class, Prozac-popping average Joe they can be.

True of most people, but this tends to be true of most people in every circumstances.

What seems to be different about America is that we provide the opportunities and to a degree the encouragement for those who do not want to be like that to succeed, or at least make valiant efforts and often make some progress in those efforts.

You know, there is nothing wrong with leading a quiet life and enjoying the little things. Waking up next to your wife every morning, having breakfast together, packing the kids off to school, having an honest job that pays the rent and doesn't induce tortured battles in the darkest chambers of your soul every day. You are the embodiment of mission and purpose parent was talking about, but make no mistake, that does not mean mission and purpose is in any way more honorable than peace and quiet. Live and let live.

I suppose my post was more inflammatory than necessary. I don't really have any problem with people who know what makes them happy and manage to achieve it. What I don't like to see in the community around me is people who have no desire to see the "big picture" or how they fit into it, trusting their senator/boss/etc. to do that for them. People seem to me to be lacking a concept that they are part of a bigger system, except when the media reminds them of the fact.

That's a good test when viewing these arguments for the "next superpower". I'd always ask the author; what do you feel made the USA successful in the past? Why has that changed?

Most of the American declinism supporters still cite WWII as the only reason for American economic ascendancy. I'm skeptical that markets take 65 years to correct.

65 years to correct? Consider the British Empire in 1914 and then again in 1971. It's more or less the same for all European nations. We lost our minds, a generation, many of our cities and all of our empires. 65 years is not going to correct that, it was a one-way street.

Do you have ANY understanding of the state of Europe's economy following WW2? We were heading for WW3 after the US pulled the mat on the debt repayments. Luckily Marshal understood this and hence the Marshal Plan prevented WW3 in Europe.

Europe was heading to WWIII in 1947? I don't see it.

Try looking from the east side of the Berlin wall.

Ok, but all those empires, what were they built on? They were built on the megalomaniac greed of a bunch of predatory monarchs and their clerical stooges. None of it came from the people. That's very different from today's US.

Not completely. A lot of it was built by explorers and entrepreneurs. There is a difference nowadays; but lots of parallels too.

Admirable as they may be individually, they were part of a very tiny social class and their funding came from the ruling cleptomaniac families.

You dont see this today either?

I do see it, but access to opportunities is now much broader than it was in Europe's aristocratic past.

What, like the Bushes?

I'm afraid it used to be much worse, even if it's hard to believe after having just suffered through the Bush years. I grant you that ;-)

Today's empires are built on the megalomanic greed of a bunch of predatory chief executives and their political stooges.

Only if you think that our democracy is a sham. I don't think that's entirely the case, and I don't see how that prevents broad access to the resources needed to start a startup.

America's startups are an epiphenomenon.

Chevron had a 10 BILLION dollar profit last year. This was a disaster- it earned 24 billion in 2008.

All existing companies were once startups and almost none of them were started by aristocracy.

You are correct, the aristocracy didn't start these companies, they just bankrolled them

Our democracy is at most only 50% a sham. I think if we're looking for scapegoats for all of the problems of society, we should go a higher level and blame corporate personhood itself rather than individual sociopathic executives.

Corporate personhood is a worthy discussion. But it doesn't mean that corporations lack legitimacy as bad as the kings and queens of the past.

The British Empire was largely built from commercial interests - look at the East India Company and the Opium Wars.

What has changed is the easy part. It is Richard Hilton vs Paris Hilton. Born to power and an easy life has made the US soft. The average US citizen demands that the government fixes their problems.

> It's our sense of mission and purpose in the world. It's something that nobody else has

Except China (also a number of other countries)

Ironically your post has shown the true power the US has. Abnormal levels of patriotism. America has declined. Drastically. Look at what the middle class has today compared to years prior. Did you know there was a time that middle class in the US meant you had servants? Money has vacated the middle classes and flooded into the upper classes in the last 20 or so years.

I grew up in the US and I live in western Europe now. I don't see myself ever going back long term. I feel like my standard of living here is much better.

The rest of the world don't want to be Americans, they want to be better than Americans.

America is the current yardstick, not to be confused with adulation.

This Brazilian wouldn't want to live anywhere else (except maybe Portugal, but not forever). And I've lived in Europe and worked with Americans.

I tend to agree with you, albeit reluctantly, but let me ask you this: If another country, say China, had that sense of purpose, would you know?

We don't speak their language (at least I don't), so we cannot watch their version of Hollywood movies or read their version of Hacker News. Therefore I wouldn't be too confident in my beliefs. They might turn out to be cliches.

It's easy to tell. You just need to use what I call the boast test. It works on countries just as well as it does on individual people because countries are made up of the sum character of the people. Basically, it says that the harder someone tries to let others know about their abilities, the less animated they are by a deep sense of purpose. People with real, deep power and deep purpose don't boast. They're calm. But you know they have power. A second rate power like Russia is eager to boast about their military capabilities. China's Olympic spectacle last summer was a classic example of this notion. The only recent power I can think of that had that sense of calm was Great Britain. They just had the right stuff. And they changed the world. Churchill's speeches could have been written by any U.S. president. The EU sort of has it, but it's not willing to back it up with muscle...not necessarily war...but just declaration of purpose in their leaders. Maybe it's because they're secular. I don't know. But they don't really have it. No one does.

Whilst I happen to agree the US has a sense of purpose, it fails the test by your own definition.

If not boasting was a test for anything the US would fail miserably. Just listen to all the ridiculous shock and awe rhetoric from the Iraq war or cultural pearls like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(movie).

I think we need to know much more than official grandstanding and parades in order to judge wether enough individuals in a particular country are driven by a will to innovate and succeed and are willing to take some risks as well.

you realize that you have failed your own test, right?

It's not so much that China is going to be the lone superpower - it's going to be more of a multi-polar world again as the US is still light years ahead at least in terms of military tech.

You reckon? Who do you suppose gets the most bang for their military buck? Who's got the bigger manufacturing base, which is what all big wars come down to in the end?

The USA still has the superior military, yes. But even now, it would be a very nasty fight indeed. In ten years' time, when China has handsomely exceeded the ship numbers of the US Navy, it's anyone's guess who would win, and let's hope we never have to find out.

The US will eventually decline economically relative to China, but the US has other advantages, besides military tech. The US has exported its political model to Western Europe over the past 100 years. A lot of middle-class people in China want to live in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, and will do so as fast as those countries let them in. The English-speaking countries will let them in the quickest, perhaps to buy those empty houses. Such emigration out of China, coupled with their one-child policy, means China will hit a demographic wall quicker than Japan ever did.

And of course, because of Western countries' tradition of federation and democracy, the US and Canada can slowly merge with the EU, treaty by treaty, just as fast as it needs to to counterbalance China. NATO is just the beginning of this. I'd imagine Russia will eventually, perhaps in 20 or 30 yrs, join the EU, Euro, and even the Schengen zone one day. Such a combined US/Canada & EU/Russia would have well over a billion people, with most people probably speaking English, and be centred around the Arctic Ocean, which by then would be the best land on the planet because of climate change.

But who's China going to federate with? They've had trouble keeping their Western provinces in check, and keeping their own people inside the country. They'll probably get Mongolia, maybe even Burma, within 50 yrs, but none of their other neighbors will trust them enough to let them too close. Russia will look to Europe to help defend its Siberian resources before it lets China in. Perhaps their immigrants to the West will stay loyal as part-time spies, but their children certainly won't.

In 50 yrs, a combined US/EU/Russia will be top dog, with China lagging in 2nd place, and Japan, India, Brazil, in the third tier.