The US is the world's largest exporter of TV, movies, music, and culture.
1.) having the biggest economy in the world, and growing 3% per year
2.) having the biggest worldly influential movie business
3.) having the biggest worldly influential video game business
4.) having 40% of assets in the world
5.) having most of the innovations in technology
6.) having most of the biggest corporations
7.) having the most brands
8.)......etcetcetc
This is a list of things that can go away in a heartbeat. Someone living in Victorian England couldn't possibly imagine a world where Britain wasn't at the absolute centre and on in charge of everything, yet within two generations that power had all but faded.
> within two generations
What if Texas splits off and takes a few states with it? What if California decides to bail as well? That'd put a lot of pressure on New England, which might just call it quits, too, rather than be saddled with the South.
A single thing could lead to the complete erosion of the United States as we know it, and politically it would never recover.
If you think this is impossible, that it will never happen, the Austro-Hungarian empire was once like this, geographically and economically dominant, yet it fell apart surprisingly quickly.
Consider: The United States has only fought only a handful of wars on its own soil and a few of those went really badly. A large country is harder to defend, and if the entire might of the US military can't keep a lid on a place like Afghanistan or Iraq what hope does it have holding together half a continent?
There are good reasons for this, one is unity of culture compared to most other countries in the world, and another is federalism to tide over the differences. Things could change if say, cloning started happening and the South couldn't handle it, or Trump became a dictator-for-life and institutional means didn't stop him, but somebody would have to change their way of life for secession to be seriously on the table again. Why would California or Texas break away today? Internal economic dynamics are beneficial enough to keep them in. Things like language differences that might break apart other centralized countries simply aren't issues (some localities print their official stuff in Spanish, Vietnamese, whatever, others don't; ethnic radio stations and TV stations exist if you want to have them, nobody cares; you can incorporate your own cities if there are enough of "you" living together, whatever "you" are, and you can elect one of your own as mayor, it's a big country). During the Civil War there was still a strong notion of states' rights, today there is not and the country is a lot more similar than different.
Also Texas was independent. It chose to join and wasn't forced in. Texas seceding is just a joke. There is a lot to be said for a country built on strong institutional legitimacy (even the re-organized South after the Civil War was re-admitted state by state through local votes): people don't jump for the exits at the first sign of trouble.
California could quit if a dictator arises, a threat that was unthinkable a decade ago but is now unnervingly probable. Other states like Vermont would likely cut loose as well, they don't have time for that.
> During the Civil War there was still a strong notion of states' rights, today there is not and the country is a lot more similar than different.
I'd argue that people more strongly identify with their home state than with some vague concept of "America", especially when it comes to states like California, Texas and Florida that have their own identity. The more these states differentiate, the more likely they are to disagree, and from there, eventually split.
Europe's had a long time to end up in its current state, and it's still shifting wildly. Belgium might split in half. Spain might rip apart. England might lose Scotland. Ireland might get unified. Nothing stays static for long.
Consider the United States in its current form only really came about in 1912. That's basically yesterday in terms of history. To think that will remain static for another hundred years is ridiculous.
There's also probably a list of many, more important strengths, that the US has lost, for example: It's no longer "the world's workshop."
I'd also challenge a lot of the items in your list:
> 1.) having the biggest economy in the world, and growing 3% per year
This might not be true for much longer, maybe only a couple of decades.
> 3.) having the biggest worldly influential video game business
If this is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise.
> 4.) having 40% of assets in the world
This is really just #1 repeated, IMHO. Also, the strength of "ownership," especially that of foreign assets, is a legal concept that could be undone with the stroke of a pen. It could also be easily undone of those assets become less valuable (e.g. if the US enters a serious decline, it's unlikely that US stocks would remain a good investment).
> 5.) having most of the innovations in technology
Innovations and technology can be stolen, it's the ability to continuously create AND implement them that matters.
> 6.) having most of the biggest corporations
This is basically #4 repeated, IMHO.
> 7.) having the most brands
This is basically #6 repeated. Furthermore, what real power comes from having a "brand" let along a lot of them? Also, how long can this last if "brands" are often used in a shell game to mask quality declines (see https://recraigslist.com/2015/10/they-used-to-last-50-years/)?
nobody can estimate out to decades. anyone who claim to be able to do so is a charlatan.
> If this is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise
1.2B people play games worldwide....what's your point?
>This is really just #1 repeated
no it's not. having assets and the ability to generate even more assets are seperate issues (look at Saudi Arabia post oil)
> Innovations and technology can be stolen
Until you try selling your stolen technology in US or Europe or Japan....oh wait you can't.
> This is basically #4 repeated
population having asset is different than the country having corporations.
No one can with certainty, but it's also foolish not to try.
Anyway, you're doing the same thing: any enumeration of strengths (in this context) comes with the implication that those strengths will remain. Otherwise the list is moot.
>> If [video games] is in the top 10, it's damning with faint praise
> 1.2B people play games worldwide....what's your point?
Clearly that "games" aren't actually an important category in any sensible reckoning, and that an one that treats them as such is a mockery or something that can't be taken seriously.
> no it's not. having assets and the ability to generate even more assets are seperate issues (look at Saudi Arabia post oil)
This might be the time to point out that you didn't even define what "assets" you were talking about, let alone how you determined that the US has "40%" of them.
> Until you try selling your stolen technology in US or Europe or Japan....oh wait you can't.
There's more to the world that Europe or Japan.
> population having asset is different than the country having corporations.
Maybe technically, but most American "assets" are owned or controlled by corporations. And their value is that they control those assets.
...You're doing the same thing, though.
> 1.2B people play games worldwide....what's your point?
7.6B people worldwide sit on chairs. That doesn't mean that "world's largest, most influential chair industry" is a significant marker of global power.
The economy has strong contenders with Europe and China. Yes, it's a strong economy, but the maker-industry has largely been moved to China, which now surely dominates it. Point 6 & 7 include economy.
Hollywood surely tops any other in the western world - don't underestimate the Chinese movie industry and Bollywood. They account for a significant userbase of the world population, combined ~1-2 billion. That's not far off Hollywood's.
The video game business I bundle with Silicon Valley.
What's left is a strong and influential USA but declining slowly but surely. For Silicon Valley as well: India and China have a large population now with more and more skilled workers. It won't be for long until SV will lose is leadership position.
It’s near the top of the world in any of these categories alone, but if you combine them, it’s pretty much impossible to beat (unless it collapses from internal tensions of course).
Edit: Also, in the grand scheme of things, Silicon Valley isn’t even that important... most of the startup-y companies could turn to dust tomorrow and the world would go on, with less Instagram photos but with the US still on top. Sure, there are some companies that actually do stuff (Intel, Cisco, Apple, etc) but most have foreign or open-source alternatives anyhow.
The U.S. has liberty, democracy, and opportunity, and believes in those things as universal principles for everyone. The current administration and their party have, unusually for the U.S., moved away from those principles, but they are the core of U.S. influence in the world. It's not a fringe idea, but it has been the core of U.S. policy and that has been very broadly accepted by experts and practitioners for generations.
It also has great affects on the economic and political systems: By empowering people economically and politically, they thrive. You end up with a far better meritocracy and far more effective, more just, and more compassionate government. All the richest, most free, most prosperous countries in the world follow this same core belief, and it has spread around the world.