The End of American Hegemony (Or at Least Global Influence)

[Purpelia]

The Middle East has been unstable since the Classical Era, when Alexander the Great invaded the Persian Empire. Since then it has always been a hotbed of political and religious extremism. To say the ME was "perfectly stable and calm" before Western intervention is completely false and erroneous. Saddam Hussein after his decisive defeat in 1991 has descended into paranoia and further went down the road of violent suppression of human rights. So was Assad in terms of oppression, who gassed his own citizens.

Saddam kept things calm and orderly. And that is what matters. What nations do within their own borders is NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS. Meddling into the affairs of other nations only leads to what ever problems they have getting worse and spilling over into the rest of the world. It's simple.

Except that more than 90% of Americans have health insurance pre-pandemic, thanks to Obamacare and Medicare expansion. It's not a lottery contest to get insurance or whatever BS reasons people can cook up. And since when did Europeans have a monopoly on dictating what is a "civilization"?

Issue is that what passes for health insurance in your country would be laughed at by homeless people in the civilized world. For a start you don't have full coverage of all your healthcare needs for free/nominal fee.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

What nations do within their own borders is NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS.

...

Issue is that what passes for health insurance in your country would be laughed at by homeless people in the civilized world. For a start you don't have full coverage of all your healthcare needs for free/nominal fee.

Maybe it works for them on an Eugenic level. The weakest specimens, through no moral fault of their own of course, become homeless or otherwise uninsurable, and providing they die before reproducing, Americans over time would become better people than your own country has?

And don't forget immigration. Historically it was only the bravest and most aspirational of oppressed people, who took the dangerous sea voyage to a new land. Brave, because they must have know they would have trouble fitting in, and would suffer discrimination, at least for a few years at first. And aspirational, because immigration might also select from the stagnant old countries and strife-ridden hellholes *cough* the more intelligent or skilled refugees. Not necessarily the most downtrodden, but the smartest, bravest, most skilled and most idealistic from among the downtrodden.

Among refugees there is much tragedy. But among the nations that they leave and the nations that take them in, there is one clear winner. And one clear loser. I leave it to the reader to determine which is which.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

What nations do within their own borders is NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS.

...

Issue is that what passes for health insurance in your country would be laughed at by homeless people in the civilized world. For a start you don't have full coverage of all your healthcare needs for free/nominal fee.

Maybe it works for them on an Eugenic level. The weakest specimens, through no moral fault of their own of course, become homeless or otherwise uninsurable, and providing they die before reproducing, Americans over time would become better people than your own country has?

And don't forget immigration. Historically it was only the bravest and most aspirational of oppressed people, who took the dangerous sea voyage to a new land. Brave, because they must have know they would have trouble fitting in, and would suffer discrimination, at least for a few years at first. And aspirational, because immigration might also select from the stagnant old countries and strife-ridden hellholes *cough* the more intelligent or skilled refugees. Not necessarily the most downtrodden, but the smartest, bravest, most skilled and most idealistic from among the downtrodden.

Among refugees there is much tragedy. But among the nations that they leave and the nations that take them in, there is one clear winner. And one clear loser. I leave it to the reader to determine which is which.

But now really knowledgeable and wise immigrants should apply for a visa and buy a aircraft ticket instead of.....courage.'I hate my hometown because it is so poor and chaos.'This does not mean that you can get rid of poverty by coming to other countries.Like Kennedy said,'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'

[The Alma Mater]

And since when did Europeans have a monopoly on dictating what is a "civilization"?

For many, many centuries. They also have a monopoly on dictating what "discovering new lands" means - because natives living somewhere for thousands of years do not count.

[Picairn]

Saddam kept things calm and orderly. And that is what matters. What nations do within their own borders is NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS. Meddling into the affairs of other nations only leads to what ever problems they have getting worse and spilling over into the rest of the world. It's simple.

Saddam definitely failed at keeping both his own country and the region stable, with the Iraq-Iran war, the 1991 invasion of Kuwait, and the constant uprisings of the Kurds. Furthermore, you failed to recognize that non-intervention has led to ghastly atrocities in the past, such as the Rwandan genocide. The "None of anyone else's business" principle, IMO, stops at genociding your own people or invading other countries. (The 1991 Gulf War was justified, deal with it).

Issue is that what passes for health insurance in your country would be laughed at by homeless people in the civilized world. For a start you don't have full coverage of all your healthcare needs for free/nominal fee.

Actually no, first dollar coverage - where the government pays 100% of the costs, is not that popular. How much the government pays for healthcare is varied across European states. Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. built their healthcare models on private or a mix of public/private health insurance, with additional cost-sharing methods such as copayments, premiums and deductibles. Do these countries qualify as not "civilized" according to you, when they still keep the principle of making people pay for health services alive?

Also, the Democrats tried very hard at passing universal healthcare, but it ran into massive roadblocks created by Republicans. Not to mention the fact that the US is a federal country with different interests among the states, not a unitary nation to easily pass legislation in a whim. To call the US "uncivilized" just because it didn't successfully bring universal healthcare is a dumb purity test, created by smug elitists as a condescension towards Americans and an insult to genuine incremental efforts by hardworking legislators to expand healthcare coverage.

[Purpelia]

What nations do within their own borders is NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS.

...

Issue is that what passes for health insurance in your country would be laughed at by homeless people in the civilized world. For a start you don't have full coverage of all your healthcare needs for free/nominal fee.

Maybe it works for them on an Eugenic level. The weakest specimens, through no moral fault of their own of course, become homeless or otherwise uninsurable, and providing they die before reproducing, Americans over time would become better people than your own country has?

And don't forget immigration. Historically it was only the bravest and most aspirational of oppressed people, who took the dangerous sea voyage to a new land. Brave, because they must have know they would have trouble fitting in, and would suffer discrimination, at least for a few years at first. And aspirational, because immigration might also select from the stagnant old countries and strife-ridden hellholes *cough* the more intelligent or skilled refugees. Not necessarily the most downtrodden, but the smartest, bravest, most skilled and most idealistic from among the downtrodden.

Among refugees there is much tragedy. But among the nations that they leave and the nations that take them in, there is one clear winner. And one clear loser. I leave it to the reader to determine which is which.

You cut out the meat of the first half of a response where the two halves have very little to do with one another. Thus I can not parse the interpretation of my text that you responded to. Are you replying to it all, only one half? Which half? Half of one part and half of the other? etc.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Maybe it works for them on an Eugenic level. The weakest specimens, through no moral fault of their own of course, become homeless or otherwise uninsurable, and providing they die before reproducing, Americans over time would become better people than your own country has?

And don't forget immigration. Historically it was only the bravest and most aspirational of oppressed people, who took the dangerous sea voyage to a new land. Brave, because they must have know they would have trouble fitting in, and would suffer discrimination, at least for a few years at first. And aspirational, because immigration might also select from the stagnant old countries and strife-ridden hellholes *cough* the more intelligent or skilled refugees. Not necessarily the most downtrodden, but the smartest, bravest, most skilled and most idealistic from among the downtrodden.

Among refugees there is much tragedy. But among the nations that they leave and the nations that take them in, there is one clear winner. And one clear loser. I leave it to the reader to determine which is which.

You cut out the meat of the first half of a response where the two halves have very little to do with one another. Thus I can not parse the interpretation of my text that you responded to. Are you replying to it all, only one half? Which half? Half of one part and half of the other? etc.

I replied to the last line. "Maybe it works for them on an Eugenic level" I began, then went on with what I hoped would be an obvious parody of a racist eugenics argument: America not having public healthcare might breed better Americans by letting the poor ones die.

Let me be very clear. The sarcasm is aimed at the same thing you were criticizing, the american health care system. I do somewhat support Eugenics (genetic improvement at parent's discretion) but of course not killing people, sterilizing them without consent ... or letting them die for want of healthcare.

I started with parody and then continued (the second and third paragraphs) in much the same tone, but with utter sincerity. That stuff about refugees, I genuinely believe.

I thought it was clever to draw the reader (that's you, but of course there are others) into the second paragraph expecting parody, and finding exaggerations and pompous style typical of parody. I was hoping to make them "wake up" to it being serious around about half way through. I thought it might give my opinion more "punch" but it seems I'm not a good enough writer to pull it off this time. You're just confused about what part is serious and what is not, and I'm sorry for that.

If you read it again now, and think I'm talking about your country when I deride "stagnant old countries and strife-ridden hellholes", I didn't mean to. I just meant that countries are made worse in the long term by losing emigrants, while countries that accept them as immigrants are made better. At least genetically ...

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Maybe it works for them on an Eugenic level. The weakest specimens, through no moral fault of their own of course, become homeless or otherwise uninsurable, and providing they die before reproducing, Americans over time would become better people than your own country has?

And don't forget immigration. Historically it was only the bravest and most aspirational of oppressed people, who took the dangerous sea voyage to a new land. Brave, because they must have know they would have trouble fitting in, and would suffer discrimination, at least for a few years at first. And aspirational, because immigration might also select from the stagnant old countries and strife-ridden hellholes *cough* the more intelligent or skilled refugees. Not necessarily the most downtrodden, but the smartest, bravest, most skilled and most idealistic from among the downtrodden.

Among refugees there is much tragedy. But among the nations that they leave and the nations that take them in, there is one clear winner. And one clear loser. I leave it to the reader to determine which is which.

But now really knowledgeable and wise immigrants should apply for a visa and buy a aircraft ticket instead of.....courage.'I hate my hometown because it is so poor and chaos.'This does not mean that you can get rid of poverty by coming to other countries.Like Kennedy said,'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'

I get you. It is very sad that the country of opportunity is more interested in money than people's welfare.

They let in rich people, presumably thinking "it makes the whole country richer" or maybe "yea, another taxpayer" ... but every added rich person makes everyone poor or middle class, a little poorer by comparison.

Letting in poor people does come at a cost. They need to be supported for a while, but it's an investment in a person, who by and large is more eager to work hard and pay taxes than the average American is. And there's a less obvious benefit too: if they do well, they're much better off than they were in the country they left, and they feel gratitude towards their country. Oddly, settled immigrants and their children are inclined against allowing further immigration. It's puzzled me for years.

But who am I to talk. I live in Fortress Australia: we used to be one of the world's most generous countries to refugees. Now we're not.

[Picairn]

Still waiting for a reply from Purpelia.

[Torisakia]

Healthcare is definitely not treated like a privilege in America. There are dozens of different healthcare programs with different recipients and coverage like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Indian Health Service, Tricare, VA, FEHB, etc. and above all, Obamacare. It is a mishmash clusterfuck of bureaucracy with gaps in-between, but nonetheless, saying healthcare is treated like a privilege in America is grossly incorrect.

Yet with all those options people are still drowning is hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. Almost every other first world country has some form of universal healthcare that actually works. Why can't the US do the same? It's obviously not that difficult to achieve.

And I do not feel sympathy to those students who chose to go to expensive private universities and then bitch about the costs on Twitter. Like mate, community college, scholarships, financial aid, etc. are your best friends, yet you didn't use any of those resources offered to you.

Here's a fun fact: not everyone qualifies for community college, scholarships, and financial aid. And even so, the fact that they have to go through all of that just to get a degree that gives them a slim chance at getting a decent paying job pretty much shows the flaws in the system. I'm aware not every first world country has free higher education, but what is the justification for having fees upwards of $30,000+ per semester?

Lets assume that a university does charge $30,000 exactly per semester. Assuming one goes for four years, that's $240,000. Also assuming that they get the full Pell Grant each year (which, as of the 2020-21 academic year, is $6,345), that's $25,380 that they don't have to pay back.Since the amount you receive for subsidized and unsubsidized loans vary, I'll use the numbers from my own loans. Entering my last year as of 2020, I have $15,200 in subsidized and $5,000 in unsubsidized over the span of 7 semester (or 3.5 years), for a total of $15,700. Taking these numbers and subtracting them from the four year cost minus the Pell Grant (since they don't have pay that back), so ($214,620 - $15,200), that would come out to $199,420. So a student is still required to pay $24.927.50 out of pocket per semester, assuming they don't receive any other form of aid. That's still 83.7% of the total cost per semester. And even if they did qualify for a scholarship, the chances of every student getting one that covers the bulk of these costs is pretty small.

So the fact that they have to go through all these hoops just to get a piece of paper that basically dictates whether or not you're "successful" in life is pretty messed up.

[The Rich Port]

If the opportunity arises, that would be Russia and/or China, and if anything, they will be worse.

Eh. When it comes to foreign policy, we're no better than they are. If anything, we're more imperialistic than they are.

Ah yes the ol' Putin-Bot Standard Cynical Answer.

When was the last time America fucking pretty much annexed territory from a border nation? Imagine America invading Mexico to get it to cede territory or government.

I mean, NOW you could because Donald Trump is a Putin fanboy but otherwise, no, America shares very little similarity to China and Russia, imperialism wise, especially now that Trump has systematically destroyed every alliance we've had with our democratic European allies.

Although yeah to be fair, he is current employing Russian and Chinese tactics in dealing with political opponents so I guess we're both right.

[Aureumterra]

Not going to happen anytime soon. Unlike the rapid collapse of empires in the past, which generally involved a series of lost wars and rebellions, and in the British Empire’s case, decolonization, the US has secured itself as an economic power that can use this leverage when making deals internationally, and the only country which can challenge that is China, which is a shitty alternative

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Eh. When it comes to foreign policy, we're no better than they are. If anything, we're more imperialistic than they are.

Ah yes the ol' Putin-Bot Standard Cynical Answer.

When was the last time America fucking pretty much annexed territory from a border nation? Imagine America invading Mexico to get it to cede territory or government.

I mean, NOW you could because Donald Trump is a Putin fanboy but otherwise, no, America shares very little similarity to China and Russia, imperialism wise, especially now that Trump has systematically destroyed every alliance we've had with our democratic European allies.

Although yeah to be fair, he is current employing Russian and Chinese tactics in dealing with political opponents so I guess we're both right.

1898 or 1959? So the United States often goes into other people's countries, slaughters, and leaves .It seems to be a noble act.You know, there were people who loved it--Viking pirates

[Mirjt]

As an American, all I can say is YAY. We thinking ourselves as better than others and being allowed to do whatever we want has been a curse to ourselves and the rest of the world and it must end. I can't be happy enough about us losing global influence, I may want to go and celebrate now.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

As an American, all I can say is YAY. We thinking ourselves as better than others and being allowed to do whatever we want has been a curse to ourselves and the rest of the world and it must end. I can't be happy enough about us losing global influence, I may want to go and celebrate now.

America's strategy for global influence should be a showman's saying: "There's no such thing as bad publicity".

America is still a democracy, and America has some of the free-est speech. This combination makes it easy for foreign nations, and their citizens, to read America's mind. To know what America is likely to do, in any future scenario, or is likely to do right now. Strategically that's not good, but if you lose a little ground because you were too honest and direct, it's not something to be ashamed of.

The words of a President frame an alternative strategy: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Always hold a threat over others, friend or foe, but do not provoke them ... OK ... but also do not inform them of your intentions? Strategically this is quite strong, but do you really want to be that nation? Speaking so softly that you can't be heard in the media jungle, keeping to yourself, keeping your own citizens quiet, so that one day you may lash out without warning ... with your big stick? That's a bit psycho isn't it?

One is right, and the other is wrong. One is a notorious showman interested only in money and fame. The other is one of the most revered Presidents of all time.

Vote Trump/Pence 2020! Vote for bluster not bombs, because there's no such thing as bad publicity!

No it's not a parody. I have medication-induced mental health problems, but I'm a good boy. I won't stop taking my meds until I've seen the psych who prescribed them for me. I hope that will be soon!

[Mirjt]

As an American, all I can say is YAY. We thinking ourselves as better than others and being allowed to do whatever we want has been a curse to ourselves and the rest of the world and it must end. I can't be happy enough about us losing global influence, I may want to go and celebrate now.

America's strategy for global influence should be a showman's saying: "There's no such thing as bad publicity".

America is still a democracy, and America has some of the free-est speech. This combination makes it easy for foreign nations, and their citizens, to read America's mind. To know what America is likely to do, in any future scenario, or is likely to do right now. Strategically that's not good, but if you lose a little ground because you were too honest and direct, it's not something to be ashamed of.

The words of a President frame an alternative strategy: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Always hold a threat over others, friend or foe, but do not provoke them ... OK ... but also do not inform them of your intentions? Strategically this is quite strong, but do you really want to be that nation? Speaking so softly that you can't be heard in the media jungle, keeping to yourself, keeping your own citizens quiet, so that one day you may lash out without warning ... with your big stick? That's a bit psycho isn't it?

One is right, and the other is wrong. One is a notorious showman interested only in money and fame. The other is one of the most revered Presidents of all time.

Vote Trump/Pence 2020! Vote for bluster not bombs, because there's no such thing as bad publicity!

No it's not a parody. I have medication-induced mental health problems, but I'm a good boy. I won't stop taking my meds until I've seen the psych who prescribed them for me. I hope that will be soon!

I was not being sarcastic or ironic with my comment, I am really excited about the idea of America losing global influence and hegemony (and I am an American).

[Nobel Hobos 2]

America's strategy for global influence should be a showman's saying: "There's no such thing as bad publicity".

America is still a democracy, and America has some of the free-est speech. This combination makes it easy for foreign nations, and their citizens, to read America's mind. To know what America is likely to do, in any future scenario, or is likely to do right now. Strategically that's not good, but if you lose a little ground because you were too honest and direct, it's not something to be ashamed of.

The words of a President frame an alternative strategy: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Always hold a threat over others, friend or foe, but do not provoke them ... OK ... but also do not inform them of your intentions? Strategically this is quite strong, but do you really want to be that nation? Speaking so softly that you can't be heard in the media jungle, keeping to yourself, keeping your own citizens quiet, so that one day you may lash out without warning ... with your big stick? That's a bit psycho isn't it?

One is right, and the other is wrong. One is a notorious showman interested only in money and fame. The other is one of the most revered Presidents of all time.

Vote Trump/Pence 2020! Vote for bluster not bombs, because there's no such thing as bad publicity!

No it's not a parody. I have medication-induced mental health problems, but I'm a good boy. I won't stop taking my meds until I've seen the psych who prescribed them for me. I hope that will be soon!

I was not being sarcastic or ironic with my comment, I am really excited about the idea of America losing global influence and hegemony (and I am an American).

While I'm taking a different meaning from "influence". Other nations knowing what to expect from America is a good thing. Signing a peace treaty one year then invading two years later, is not good. Influence isn't just fear.

As to Hegemony I'm totally against that!

[Punished UMN]

Not going to happen anytime soon. Unlike the rapid collapse of empires in the past, which generally involved a series of lost wars and rebellions, and in the British Empire’s case, decolonization, the US has secured itself as an economic power that can use this leverage when making deals internationally, and the only country which can challenge that is China, which is a shitty alternative

America has already lost hegemony and Britain lost its hegemony long before decolonization. Collapse of hegemony isn't the same as empire collapse.

[Sarderia]

Not going to happen anytime soon. Unlike the rapid collapse of empires in the past, which generally involved a series of lost wars and rebellions, and in the British Empire’s case, decolonization, the US has secured itself as an economic power that can use this leverage when making deals internationally, and the only country which can challenge that is China, which is a shitty alternative

America has already lost hegemony and Britain lost its hegemony long before decolonization. Collapse of hegemony isn't the same as empire collapse.

America haven't lost its hegemony yet. I used Google Chrome to access this website. The other time, I went to Instagram to socialize with my friends. I also have Facebook, of which there are certainly millions of active users in. At home and on the coffee stall, I watched Netflix or Prime Video, like millions of others would in their free time. I got my fast food from McDonalds or KFC, and even Pizza Hut (which is while bankrupt in the US, is still a functioning franchise in my country). That is but a tiny example of American influence in my life, even to the daily things I deem trivial such as internet access and entertainment. To say American hegemony is waning, much less lost, is a massive overstatement. Actually American influence is currently on the rise in the world - everywhere you look the influence of America is present. BLM and anti-racist protests spread to Europe and even Asia. And recently ASEAN nations like Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia met with US officials on the prospect of moving American factories to ASEAN (from China). US Navy ships still roam the South China Sea, challenging the PRC in its very home, where their claim was pretty much the hot issue across these last years. No, America isn't going to be eclipsed by any country soon - though China would be a close second.

If you ask me, or pretty much almost every people in the world, to choose between America or its close contender China, I'd vouch for the US without even thinking. At least you've got free speech, 2nd Amendment, and other things you can enjoy. I have lived in California for about a mere month, and I observed meanwhile the US still has so many deficiencies (corrupt politicians, lobbying, homelessness, astronomical housing costs, etc) at least people can move in, be successful, and live a better life there. That alone is America's greatest strength.

[Picairn]

America haven't lost its hegemony yet. I used Google Chrome to access this website. The other time, I went to Instagram to socialize with my friends. I also have Facebook, of which there are certainly millions of active users in. At home and on the coffee stall, I watched Netflix or Prime Video, like millions of others would in their free time. I got my fast food from McDonalds or KFC, and even Pizza Hut (which is while bankrupt in the US, is still a functioning franchise in my country). That is but a tiny example of American influence in my life, even to the daily things I deem trivial such as internet access and entertainment. To say American hegemony is waning, much less lost, is a massive overstatement. Actually American influence is currently on the rise in the world - everywhere you look the influence of America is present. BLM and anti-racist protests spread to Europe and even Asia. And recently ASEAN nations like Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia met with US officials on the prospect of moving American factories to ASEAN (from China). US Navy ships still roam the South China Sea, challenging the PRC in its very home, where their claim was pretty much the hot issue across these last years. No, America isn't going to be eclipsed by any country soon - though China would be a close second.

If you ask me, or pretty much almost every people in the world, to choose between America or its close contender China, I'd vouch for the US without even thinking. At least you've got free speech, 2nd Amendment, and other things you can enjoy. I have lived in California for about a mere month, and I observed meanwhile the US still has so many deficiencies (corrupt politicians, lobbying, homelessness, astronomical housing costs, etc) at least people can move in, be successful, and live a better life there. That alone is America's greatest strength.

Indeed, America's military and economic strengths, as well as cultural and technological influence, remain supreme.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

America has already lost hegemony and Britain lost its hegemony long before decolonization. Collapse of hegemony isn't the same as empire collapse.

America haven't lost its hegemony yet. I used Google Chrome to access this website. The other time, I went to Instagram to socialize with my friends. I also have Facebook, of which there are certainly millions of active users in. At home and on the coffee stall, I watched Netflix or Prime Video, like millions of others would in their free time. I got my fast food from McDonalds or KFC, and even Pizza Hut (which is while bankrupt in the US, is still a functioning franchise in my country). That is but a tiny example of American influence in my life, even to the daily things I deem trivial such as internet access and entertainment. To say American hegemony is waning, much less lost, is a massive overstatement. Actually American influence is currently on the rise in the world - everywhere you look the influence of America is present. BLM and anti-racist protests spread to Europe and even Asia. And recently ASEAN nations like Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia met with US officials on the prospect of moving American factories to ASEAN (from China). US Navy ships still roam the South China Sea, challenging the PRC in its very home, where their claim was pretty much the hot issue across these last years. No, America isn't going to be eclipsed by any country soon - though China would be a close second.

If you ask me, or pretty much almost every people in the world, to choose between America or its close contender China, I'd vouch for the US without even thinking. At least you've got free speech, 2nd Amendment, and other things you can enjoy. I have lived in California for about a mere month, and I observed meanwhile the US still has so many deficiencies (corrupt politicians, lobbying, homelessness, astronomical housing costs, etc) at least people can move in, be successful, and live a better life there. That alone is America's greatest strength.

yes. But they are no longer calm, lose confidence and become extreme.The US can not face China with a successful attitude like President Kennedy.The situation is irreversible.The U.S. will soon taste its own evil, but not because of China, from America Inside .China is not going to beat the United States. China is not interested in it at all.It will defeat itself like Rome and Soviet Union.

[Punished UMN]

America has already lost hegemony and Britain lost its hegemony long before decolonization. Collapse of hegemony isn't the same as empire collapse.

America haven't lost its hegemony yet. I used Google Chrome to access this website. The other time, I went to Instagram to socialize with my friends. I also have Facebook, of which there are certainly millions of active users in. At home and on the coffee stall, I watched Netflix or Prime Video, like millions of others would in their free time. I got my fast food from McDonalds or KFC, and even Pizza Hut (which is while bankrupt in the US, is still a functioning franchise in my country). That is but a tiny example of American influence in my life, even to the daily things I deem trivial such as internet access and entertainment. To say American hegemony is waning, much less lost, is a massive overstatement. Actually American influence is currently on the rise in the world - everywhere you look the influence of America is present. BLM and anti-racist protests spread to Europe and even Asia. And recently ASEAN nations like Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia met with US officials on the prospect of moving American factories to ASEAN (from China). US Navy ships still roam the South China Sea, challenging the PRC in its very home, where their claim was pretty much the hot issue across these last years. No, America isn't going to be eclipsed by any country soon - though China would be a close second.

If you ask me, or pretty much almost every people in the world, to choose between America or its close contender China, I'd vouch for the US without even thinking. At least you've got free speech, 2nd Amendment, and other things you can enjoy. I have lived in California for about a mere month, and I observed meanwhile the US still has so many deficiencies (corrupt politicians, lobbying, homelessness, astronomical housing costs, etc) at least people can move in, be successful, and live a better life there. That alone is America's greatest strength.

And what of this makes you think that this is hegemony?

[W erp]

America haven't lost its hegemony yet. I used Google Chrome to access this website. The other time, I went to Instagram to socialize with my friends. I also have Facebook, of which there are certainly millions of active users in. At home and on the coffee stall, I watched Netflix or Prime Video, like millions of others would in their free time. I got my fast food from McDonalds or KFC, and even Pizza Hut (which is while bankrupt in the US, is still a functioning franchise in my country). That is but a tiny example of American influence in my life, even to the daily things I deem trivial such as internet access and entertainment. To say American hegemony is waning, much less lost, is a massive overstatement. Actually American influence is currently on the rise in the world - everywhere you look the influence of America is present. BLM and anti-racist protests spread to Europe and even Asia. And recently ASEAN nations like Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia met with US officials on the prospect of moving American factories to ASEAN (from China). US Navy ships still roam the South China Sea, challenging the PRC in its very home, where their claim was pretty much the hot issue across these last years. No, America isn't going to be eclipsed by any country soon - though China would be a close second.

If you ask me, or pretty much almost every people in the world, to choose between America or its close contender China, I'd vouch for the US without even thinking. At least you've got free speech, 2nd Amendment, and other things you can enjoy. I have lived in California for about a mere month, and I observed meanwhile the US still has so many deficiencies (corrupt politicians, lobbying, homelessness, astronomical housing costs, etc) at least people can move in, be successful, and live a better life there. That alone is America's greatest strength.

And what of this makes you think that this is hegemony?

Cultural and technological hegemony perhaps?

[Punished UMN]

And what of this makes you think that this is hegemony?

Cultural and technological hegemony perhaps?

Except it is not. What we mean by hegemony is the monopolization of power. That has not happened. The United States is a superpower, even the lone superpower, but it is not a global hegemon and the notion of a global hegemon is a fantasy.

[Adamede]

I think the world will return to a multi-polar geopolitical scene that we saw at the beginning of WW1, with multiple great powers competing for global influence. I do expect the US to remain one of these great powers long into the future.

I do however hope that China does not become the dominant world power.