Are those who predict 'America is in decline' right this time?
newsweek.com
newsweek.com
According to Americans, things have been "going to hell" for over 200 years, and yet somehow this time it's different.
On the upside, I think all this lamenting is just a sign of our ambition to be better... and that is a good thing.
(to borrow an example from http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ an easy way to negate the effect of medical/tech advances is to imagine a replica of 1920s America appearing overnight in the pacific - do you think it would take this country long to become a world power?)
From the outside it seems as though America has been "going to hell" for at least the last 100 years.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who isn't white, or is female, and ask the same question. There may be aspects of modern American society that are worse, but it's certainly better for a lot of people.
Examples:
Women's suffrage movement continues to make gains as women obtain full voting rights in the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1906, New Zealand in 1909, Denmark in 1915, in the United States in 1920, and in the United Kingdom in 1918 (women over 30) and in 1928 (full enfranchisement); and women begin to enter the workplace in larger numbers. (wikipedia)
While blacks continued to be discriminated against there was increasing representation and labour gains as a result of increased migration to cities. In particular, democrats, socialists and communists all gained increasing black votes and voiced support for black rights ultimately leading to FDR's election (significant black votes) in 1932 and the New Deal which spelled significant rights gains for non-whites. (paraphrased from wikipedia and other "sources").
Until the early 1930s, gay clubs were openly operated, commonly known as "pansy clubs."[citation needed] The relative liberalism of the decade is demonstrated by the fact that the actor William Haines, regularly named in newspapers and magazines as the #1 male box-office draw, openly lived in a gay relationship with his partner, Jimmie Shields.[23] Other popular gay actors/actresses of the decade included Alla Nazimova and Ramon Novarro.[24] In 1927, Mae West wrote a play about homosexuality called, The Drag,.[25][26] and alluded to the work of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. It was a box-office success. West regarded talking about sex as a basic human rights issue, and was also an early advocate of gay rights. With the return of conservatism in the 1930s, the public grew intolerant of homosexuality, and gay actors were forced to choose between retiring or agreeing to hide their sexuality.[citation needed] (source wikipedia)
However, I still think 2010 is better than either of those for most people.
Oh, not to mention the longer lifespans and generally better conditions then 1920 (indoor plumbing being standard is kinda nice).
Do you think if the 1920s society could trade with modern society it would take long to exceed our lifespans with their healthier lifestyles and our modern medicine and plumbing as you've pointed out?
So, I guess to answer your question, no. I believe the 1920s society would have a lot of growing up to do and any back tracking from the economic problems of the 1930s would be intensified by today's economic problems combined with globalism. The 1920s started our isolationism that was only lifted (for the common man) by us being bombed.
The medical/tech advances alone would make my point, but you seem to want to ignore those, so I'll stick with social aspects.
Our populace is more educated, less violent, healthier, and wealthier than we were in the 1920s. Heck, on Wall Street the 1920s was a decade of greed and moral decrepitude (if you get into that sort of name calling) that is possibly only rivalled by the 1980s. Go back 30 years, and you are squarely in the 'Gilded Age', where the Senate was completely controlled by large companies (to the point where the companies simply picked candidates and ushered them through state legislatures, because Senators weren't popularly elected yet). After that came the Progressive years, where we learned that our meat was lethal and other things, and women finally got treated like human beings. How could any of those decades be considered better than the current one? Sure, women's suffrage was a great accomplishment, but only because the reality to that point was so bad.
My brother has a saying... "progress, not perfection". American history has been exactly that. Sure, there are temporary setbacks (no one can argue the 1930s were better than the 1920s really), and there are local setbacks (1980s Detroit?) but the overall story is progress. Thankfully the small victories accumulate faster than the setbacks, leaving us with a better society all the time.
I guess if we need the jeremiad to motivate us to make progress, then that is fine. I was simply commenting that it's disingenuous to pretend that it's somehow different this time. If it really were different, you wouldn't be sitting around musing about it, you'd be dealing with a collapsing society.
But I guess if you realize that, the jeremiad loses it's power, so maybe it's better we keep pretending that things are going to hell.
Some comparison points:
Marriage rates have fallen massively. Divorce rates have risen massively.
% Illiteracy (1930: 4.3% / 1%) (1930 had significant gains since prior decade) However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States raises serious questions about current literacy rates, suggesting illteracy may be 25% or higher, the point being claiming we are more educated on average is questionable.
Prisoners / 100k (1929: 98.8 | 2008: 754)
Crime Rates: Statistics vary but seem comparable. This was quite a surprise as crime rates today are around double that of 1960 (much higher for particular forms of crime).
Mean income (only counts those who filed, inflation adjusted to 2007) (1923: $74,102.15 | 2007: $62,369)
Life Expectancy: Much higher now, but general sources suggest this is due to medicine, not better living (factors such as lack of exercise and poor nutrition are considerably higher now).
I believe most(all?) people on HN would by default be in the haves. They are educated and understand what it takes today to be successful. They may be broke, but rarely poor. Then there is a large group of people who are not only uneducated in these matters, but they are also poor and have no means or understanding on how to change their situation. The problem is that the gap between the two groups is growing larger and larger. How we get those on the have not side to make the jump is a growing challenge.
Yes, but 1960 was right before a huge explosion in US crime.
US crime rates now are significantly lower than they've been for some time. The fact that they're still higher than they were in 1960 shows the magnitude of that explosion.
Even if we suddenly lost our standing as the largest economy in the world, I dont see that as meaning we will see Armageddon. It may even do us some good to let some other country be in the spotlight for a while.
Not per capita.
Also, the EU punches considerably lower than its weight. Sure, there's a large pile of money, but what can it do?
You're right. But the ones that are higher don't have much "total mass".
We've discussed three ways to compare - total GDP, GDP/person, and "how much can they do". The US is not at the top of any of them, but it's high on all three.
America hasn't retained it's position on the top of the economic stack of the world merely out of some abundance of natural resources, military might, or large corporations. Rather, America has proven to be more innovative and more dynamic than the rest of the world, generally by a fair margin. America has germinated and grown not just many of today's largest corporations but many of today's biggest industries. A huge percentage of the Fortune 500 companies didn't even exist 20, or 50 years ago.
No country has been able to match that dynamism, nor do any countries look likely to match that dynamism in the near future. The rest of the world is still struggling to break out of business models that would be more familiar in 1950s America, meanwhile America is transitioning to an even more dynamic and innovation centric economic model as startup culture begins to spread and more and more individuals start to see themselves as and become freelancers and founders than mere employees. For that reason alone I think America will probably do just fine and keep its place at the top of the heap in the world economy. That being said, there's plenty of room for everyone in the world to be rich, regardless of where the engine of dynamism in the world rests. I think in the next 20 to 50 years we'll see much of India, South America, and at least coastal China become fully first world societies, with individual income and wealth in the same range as that of America, Western Europe, Japan et al.
As a country, we'll be fine. We won't really notice the change, because our standard of living will still be improving as this occurs.
World War 1 was the sign that imperialism might not be such a good idea, since it led to an effectively pointless war, but it didn't change the relative levels of power. World War 2 occurred because certain societies didn't learn this lesson and became even more monstrous than the old imperial powers. After it, imperialism essentially died in Europe, but was unfortunately reborn in the US corporate complex.
We're able to be an empire while remaining nominally democratic because corporations-- authoritarian economic institutions-- hold most of the actual power... and it's the corporations that do the dirtiest of the dirty work, not the government.
>People need to accept that they are just assuming their rightful place atop the world order
No, that's okay. Thanks for the suggestion though. I'd love to hear your theory of 'rightful' places in the world order.
You have an odd view of the world and seem to be very angry. You hate older people, but revere the Chinese, who revere old people. Strange.
I have met very intelligent people from many backgrounds. Whether they are from East Asia, or South Asia, or anyplace that produces stereotypically smart people makes little difference in my experience.
In other posts you have implied that you had special knowledge of Chinese internet usage patterns. Are you being incredibly disingenuous when you act like the overwhelmed white American in your post?