Putting Relative Decline in Perspective
I found a lot to like in Roger Cohen’s latest column, but I did think his point that Barack Obama is “setting the tone for coming decades that — whatever else they bring — will see America’s relative economic power decline” could use a bit of perspective.
If what you mean by relative economic power is America’s share of global output, then it’s important to recognize that we’ve been in a state of decline ever since the mid-1940s. In 1946, almost every industrialized nation on earth lay in a state of rubble and the US was something like half of world output. We’ve been declining, in relative terms, ever since. The other thing that’s happened is that countries have split and recombined in different ways. The Soviet Union was a much larger country than Russia, dividing it up into pieces made us look relatively bigger. At the same time, Western European countries have started to agglomerate. If you think that alongside the US, Japan, and China the world’s other major economy is Germany then we look a lot bigger than Germany. But if you think that it should be the European Union, the US, Japan, and China then we’re quite a bit smaller than the EU. Or if you want to make it the Eurozone, rather than the EU as a whole, then we’re slightly smaller. But of course in terms of political power the EU doesn’t have the kind of decision-making mechanism that can transform the large scope of its economy into strategic influence.
That leaves you with Japan, relative to whom we’re getting stronger, and China. China is important, but it’s still basically a country full of impoverished people. And even when you lump them all together, the total is much, much smaller than ours. In other words, insofar as we’re losing relative economic power this is mainly a result of already-rich European countries becoming more coordinated in their activities. Where they’re very coordinated, they’re very powerful—their central bank probably matters more than ours at this point. But where they’re not coordinated, things are much as they’ve been for decades and the US is by far the world’s leading power.
16 Responses to “Putting Relative Decline in Perspective”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 8th, 2009 at 10:15 am
It will be good for Aerica, I hope, to be forced to define itself as great for some other reason than it’s economic power. Do these people think this wasn’t a great country before the Spanish-American war?
There are just many great nations now, rather than a simple handful. That is, in the end, a net plus for humankind. Sometimes I think much of the elite would rather we ruled the rubble than if we were one of many powerful, well ordered, and stable nations.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Last time I looked the population of the US was growing something like 8-9 times faster than that of China. Eventually this fact alone will almost certainly close the GDP growth gap between China and the US. Already you can see the signs of the coming China growth slowdown: they’re not going to be able export themselves into 10-11% growth forever in a weak dollar environment.
That said, China will pass the US as the nation state with the largest economy in a fairly short while. Probably within a decade or so in PPP terms, maybe in 20 years or a bit more otherwise. And then they’ll continue to widen the gap for quite a bit longer. But this phase won’t last forever, not as they grow richer, and as their population stagnates and eventually starts to shrink. My money’s still on India for having the world’s largest national economy in 150 years’ time, if nation states still exist.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I hope that Obama can lay the foundations of a “silver age”. It’s never going to be as good as the golden age of the Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy era, but America should make up for whatever it lacks in population by a focus on education, diplomacy and morality. America can still settle for a “first among equals”-position.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:50 am
But of course it isn’t a bad thing for Europe to be more powerful. The EU is essentially the largest democracy the world has ever seen. Would it really be so bad if it strengthened its institutions and became the worlds new superpower?
October 8th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Er.. you guys do realize that Grand Strategy for a nuclear superpower is not something ginned in a casual gossip session over your morning coffee?
In the several hundred years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Great Britain had a simple strategy: (a) use all means –fair and foul –to keep a single power from arising on the Eurasian continent (b) don’t get involved in a land war on the Eurasian continent (c) Depend on your Navy and grab control of key chokepoints.
http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/college_resources/JOR/Grand_Strategy/American_Grand_Strategy.pdf
“Heads in the Sand, Indeed”
October 8th, 2009 at 10:56 am
The Army looks at capabilities, not intentions. A consolidated EU is the only entity with the economic clout to compete with us on spending for advanced military weapons systems.
Fortunately, Europe’s campaign finance system is as vulnerable to CIA injections as ours is to donations from Haim Saban.
So what ever happened to Jacque Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder?
October 8th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Certainly Sarkozy and Merkel have been a lot more docile re US military operations.
As for Tony Blair? Well, he competed with Barney the terrier for Bush’s affections. That’s not just my judgment — that’s the judgment of many British commentators.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
No one will be able to withstand the might of North America.
We do need two other countries to complete our Megazord. Maybe Nigeria and the Philipines.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Really, who the hell cares?
October 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Have fun with all your power. Being able to destroy the world a few hundred times more than the competition most be a great thing for all Americans.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Re: In 1946, almost every industrialized nation on earth lay in a state of rubble
Nonsense. Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, western Russia, and Northern France were severely damaged. Britain was only minimally damaged. Sweden, Switerzerland, Australia, Canada and the US not at all.
October 9th, 2009 at 4:19 am
MY “But where they’re not coordinated, things are much as they’ve been for decades and the US is by far the world’s leading power.”
Leading power? Yes, I agree. Our military might will ensure that we are the leading power on the planet for at least a decade, probably two, even if we completely collapse domestically 5 years from now.
But, having just toured Europe, are we the best country? The greatest country to be a part of? Proud of? Overall. From the perspective of the average citizen?
Are you saying that the our government -and our ubiquitous private sector- gets things done and has sets such a high overall standard, for its citizens and their future, that the United States should be considered Number 1 as result? Not say, Number 14, and slipping?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Really
October 9th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Have fun with all your power.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
не понял… нечего
October 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
China. China is important, but it’s still basically a country full of impoverished pe