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

[Neuer Deutsches Reich]

When America isn’t the superpower anymore

Britain:

Episode 3: the empire strikes back

[Tea Chuggers]

guys, guys, guys
oil
i mentioned this in the 2030 thread, people don't take oil seriously but it's something that's kind a a big deal. the 21st century is going to see oil prices climb to the triple digits by the end of this decade. that would be catastrophic to most of the ways we currently do things politically.
do take oil into account, because we're pretty close to running out of the stuff; one so far credible prediction by Dr. S. al-Husseini puts the point we run out of extractable oil somewhere around 2060. if that happens, you can say goodbye to most world powers, not just the united states.

[Stellar Colonies]

Frankly, part of me wonders if we aren't headed towards the beginning of our own Century of Humiliation. Inadequate responses to epidemics and other devastating natural disasters, along with ill-conceived foreign adventures ending in bloody and expensive quagmires? Definitely seems like some shit that would've made people back in the day think we were losing the Mandate of Heaven. If not that, then perhaps an age of decadence under reactionary authoritarianism, like a decaying Rome... but then that's sorta the same thing.

No, no. We still need a Third Century Crisis first.

Or maybe the US is still in the Republic phase and has yet to shift to being an Empire...

[Nobel Hobos 2]

guys, guys, guys
oil
i mentioned this in the 2030 thread, people don't take oil seriously but it's something that's kind a a big deal. the 21st century is going to see oil prices climb to the triple digits by the end of this decade. that would be catastrophic to most of the ways we currently do things politically.
do take oil into account, because we're pretty close to running out of the stuff; one so far credible prediction by Dr. S. al-Husseini puts the point we run out of extractable oil somewhere around 2060. if that happens, you can say goodbye to most world powers, not just the united states.

The US government allowing fracking to run the US domestic supply of oil out faster, tells me they don't see much need for the stuff past 2050/60. I don't know where they expect raw energy to come from, but oil isn't the only source. Its future to me looks like plastics and aviation fuel, both of which can by synthesized from gas or coal.

[New yugoslavaia]

guys, guys, guys
oil
i mentioned this in the 2030 thread, people don't take oil seriously but it's something that's kind a a big deal. the 21st century is going to see oil prices climb to the triple digits by the end of this decade. that would be catastrophic to most of the ways we currently do things politically.
do take oil into account, because we're pretty close to running out of the stuff; one so far credible prediction by Dr. S. al-Husseini puts the point we run out of extractable oil somewhere around 2060. if that happens, you can say goodbye to most world powers, not just the united states.

The US government allowing fracking to run the US domestic supply of oil out faster, tells me they don't see much need for the stuff past 2050/60. I don't know where they expect raw energy to come from, but oil isn't the only source. Its future to me looks like plastics and aviation fuel, both of which can by synthesized from gas or coal.

We need to start using renewable and nuclear energy more very soon. Either that or we need to try and colonise other moons and planets to avert the complete extinction of the human race.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The US government allowing fracking to run the US domestic supply of oil out faster, tells me they don't see much need for the stuff past 2050/60. I don't know where they expect raw energy to come from, but oil isn't the only source. Its future to me looks like plastics and aviation fuel, both of which can by synthesized from gas or coal.

We need to start using renewable and nuclear energy more very soon.

Yes, in two ways.
Reducing world emissions (which is way-hard if decent development in the developing nations is allowed for).
And gaining a good share of the world market for the US. The US has a lot of expertise but its greatest strength is vast amounts of capital (ie money available to invest). Both renewables and nuclear are high initial cost, moderate revenue and (for renewables) low maintenance, so it's a puzzle why they're not a lot more attractive to investors.

Perhaps it's the current mood of capitalism. Share price is the main goal, and the link between future earnings expectation, and share price, is somehow broken. They seem willing to spend profits on acquiring other companies (or sometimes paying a dividend or buying back their own shares) ... instead of building new stuff and employing more workers to increase their earnings in the future. When they do invest profits back into their company, it's on a relatively short term plan. 15 years to earn back the investment in a solar farm (for instance) doesn't seem attractive to them, even with another 20 years of pure profit after that.

For renewables, I'm sure a factor is climate uncertainty. If the desert you built a solar plant on turns cloudy and rainy, profits are much less. Sure you could move it, but there would be new costs in hooking it up. I'm really not sure what to do about that. I'm not going to send government scientists to lie to investors about the future climate. Maybe government just needs to take on the risk itself.

I think for nuclear, the uncertainty is regulatory uncertainty. If they start building a plant with government approval and meeting all the current standards, then before it's even built the standards are made stricter, that is going to cost them heaps, and delay the project which itself is a cost. Then even when it's running, upgrades may be demanded, safety regulations which require more staff, or regulations that they can't even sell the power into some part of the market which voted to be non-nuclear. The plant may even be ordered to stop forever, as happened in Germany, because an accident at an inferior plant elsewhere in the world occurs and the political climate turns hard against nuclear.

Climate uncertainty could be dealt with by government guarantees of the building cost, with the capital actually coming from the private sector. But regulatory uncertainty does not have such an easy solution: governments cannot bind future governments to their current policy. I think they're going to have to take a stake. Anything from 49% to full ownership in new nuke plants. This does bind future governments in a way: they can add new regulations which make the plant less profitable, but only by damaging an asset of their own. Another option would be writing into the contract that government is liable for reduced profits following from any future regulation. That should get the lazy, risk-averse capital moving!

Either that or we need to try and colonise other moons and planets to avert the complete extinction of the human race.

I talk about that a lot, in an enthusiastic science-fiction sort of way. But when it comes time to consider how much I would spend of taxpayer's money to get it done, I'm afraid my answer is "almost none". If you let me spend a trillion US dollars, I don't think more than a billion would go to engineering plants that can live on Mars or exploring chemical engineering with Mars ingredients. The far more urgent course to avoiding mass death (extinction?) is reducing emissions here, I think I'd split it equally between renewables and nuclear. Then I'd ask for another trillion!

[New yugoslavaia]

We need to start using renewable and nuclear energy more very soon.

Yes, in two ways.
Reducing world emissions (which is way-hard if decent development in the developing nations is allowed for).
And gaining a good share of the world market for the US. The US has a lot of expertise but its greatest strength is vast amounts of capital (ie money available to invest). Both renewables and nuclear are high initial cost, moderate revenue and (for renewables) low maintenance, so it's a puzzle why they're not a lot more attractive to investors.

Perhaps it's the current mood of capitalism. Share price is the main goal, and the link between future earnings expectation, and share price, is somehow broken. They seem willing to spend profits on acquiring other companies (or sometimes paying a dividend or buying back their own shares) ... instead of building new stuff and employing more workers to increase their earnings in the future. When they do invest profits back into their company, it's on a relatively short term plan. 15 years to earn back the investment in a solar farm (for instance) doesn't seem attractive to them, even with another 20 years of pure profit after that.

For renewables, I'm sure a factor is climate uncertainty. If the desert you built a solar plant on turns cloudy and rainy, profits are much less. Sure you could move it, but there would be new costs in hooking it up. I'm really not sure what to do about that. I'm not going to send government scientists to lie to investors about the future climate. Maybe government just needs to take on the risk itself.

I think for nuclear, the uncertainty is regulatory uncertainty. If they start building a plant with government approval and meeting all the current standards, then before it's even built the standards are made stricter, that is going to cost them heaps, and delay the project which itself is a cost. Then even when it's running, upgrades may be demanded, safety regulations which require more staff, or regulations that they can't even sell the power into some part of the market which voted to be non-nuclear. The plant may even be ordered to stop forever, as happened in Germany, because an accident at an inferior plant elsewhere in the world occurs and the political climate turns hard against nuclear.

Climate uncertainty could be dealt with by government guarantees of the building cost, with the capital actually coming from the private sector. But regulatory uncertainty does not have such an easy solution: governments cannot bind future governments to their current policy. I think they're going to have to take a stake. Anything from 49% to full ownership in new nuke plants. This does bind future governments in a way: they can add new regulations which make the plant less profitable, but only by damaging an asset of their own. Another option would be writing into the contract that government is liable for reduced profits following from any future regulation. That should get the lazy, risk-averse capital moving!

Either that or we need to try and colonise other moons and planets to avert the complete extinction of the human race.

I talk about that a lot, in an enthusiastic science-fiction sort of way. But when it comes time to consider how much I would spend of taxpayer's money to get it done, I'm afraid my answer is "almost none". If you let me spend a trillion US dollars, I don't think more than a billion would go to engineering plants that can live on Mars or exploring chemical engineering with Mars ingredients. The far more urgent course to avoiding mass death (extinction?) is reducing emissions here, I think I'd split it equally between renewables and nuclear. Then I'd ask for another trillion!

Let's hope that greedy soulless corporations, right wing populists and/or climate change deniers don't get in the way of our efforts.

[Tea Chuggers]

guys, guys, guys
oil
i mentioned this in the 2030 thread, people don't take oil seriously but it's something that's kind a a big deal. the 21st century is going to see oil prices climb to the triple digits by the end of this decade. that would be catastrophic to most of the ways we currently do things politically.
do take oil into account, because we're pretty close to running out of the stuff; one so far credible prediction by Dr. S. al-Husseini puts the point we run out of extractable oil somewhere around 2060. if that happens, you can say goodbye to most world powers, not just the united states.

The US government allowing fracking to run the US domestic supply of oil out faster, tells me they don't see much need for the stuff past 2050/60. I don't know where they expect raw energy to come from, but oil isn't the only source. Its future to me looks like plastics and aviation fuel, both of which can by synthesized from gas or coal.

the last time the U.S. government made a good decision was sometime in the 18th century. It is true that the USNRL did come up with fuel oil synthestration by extracting carbon dioxide from seawater, but we can't do that on solar power and natural gas. Especially not if we've run out of natural gas to use because we have no oil. And coal is just delaying the problem.
Also what? Shale gas is a byproduct of oil mining, so if there's no more oil there's no more gas. Unless you're planning on harvesting it from some cows, anyway.

[Willtime]

America will never lose hegemony willingly.America will do everything to keep it.
So,for me,it seems like,America will use war to keep its hegemony.
I mean,America will intimidate other countries(such as China,France,Russia,India,so on)
'If you dont follow MY COMMAND,I will NUCK everyone of you!'
Of course other countries will not follow——If they follow one time,there will be another.
So,I think,maybe the end of American hegemony means the end of the world.

Three ways to make things not end like this.
1.the leaders of other coutries are cowards,they will weaken their coutries and themselves to make American happy.
————Im not crazy so I do not believe this will happen all the time.
2.there is no way that any country can catch up America.
————China is trying,Japan has tried,and other countries will have their way,of course.China used to be the center of the world,Rome too,Charlemagne too,Ottoman too,Spain too,France too,England too.No reason America is the exception.
3. the leader of America is sane.
————America show Donald Trump to the world.

I dont believe in god,and may god save the world.

[New yugoslavaia]

America will never lose hegemony willingly.America will do everything to keep it.
So,for me,it seems like,America will use war to keep its hegemony.
I mean,America will intimidate other countries(such as China,France,Russia,India,so on)
'If you dont follow MY COMMAND,I will NUCK everyone of you!'
Of course other countries will not follow——If they follow one time,there will be another.
So,I think,maybe the end of American hegemony means the end of the world.

Three ways to make things not end like this.
1.the leaders of other coutries are cowards,they will weaken their coutries and themselves to make American happy.
————Im not crazy so I do not believe this will happen all the time.
2.there is no way that any country can catch up America.
————China is trying,Japan has tried,and other countries will have their way,of course.China used to be the center of the world,Rome too,Charlemagne too,Ottoman too,Spain too,France too,England too.No reason America is the exception.
3. the leader of America is sane.
————America show Donald Trump to the world.

I dont believe in god,and may god save the world.

China has a population 1.4 billion and sits on top of around 95% of the worlds rare Earth metals. Just look at production gap between them and the US.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-investing/rare-earth-investing/rare-earth-producing-countries/
They might have a chance...which I hope they didn't.

[Willtime]

America will never lose hegemony willingly.America will do everything to keep it.
So,for me,it seems like,America will use war to keep its hegemony.
I mean,America will intimidate other countries(such as China,France,Russia,India,so on)
'If you dont follow MY COMMAND,I will NUCK everyone of you!'
Of course other countries will not follow——If they follow one time,there will be another.
So,I think,maybe the end of American hegemony means the end of the world.

Three ways to make things not end like this.
1.the leaders of other coutries are cowards,they will weaken their coutries and themselves to make American happy.
————Im not crazy so I do not believe this will happen all the time.
2.there is no way that any country can catch up America.
————China is trying,Japan has tried,and other countries will have their way,of course.China used to be the center of the world,Rome too,Charlemagne too,Ottoman too,Spain too,France too,England too.No reason America is the exception.
3. the leader of America is sane.
————America show Donald Trump to the world.

I dont believe in god,and may god save the world.

China has a population 1.4 billion and sits on top of around 95% of the worlds rare Earth metals. Just look at production gap between them and the US.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-investing/rare-earth-investing/rare-earth-producing-countries/
They might have a chance...which I hope they didn't.

I will not pretend that I am not a Chinese.
I know and understand your attitude, although I don’t agree.
Well,I think there is a misunderstanding,and it will take a long time to make us know what each other is thinking.Maybe next time we can communicate about this.
The point is,China has a chance,but chance does not mean success.We have our problems too.
such as,poverty(not all of us are poor,but there are people living bad),corruption(the corruption is being reduced,but still not complete),tedious affairs(we use many ways to reduce corruption,one of them is more and more affairs,and it is another problem).
I wont think my country is a bad one,we are living better than half of the world,and the government is trying to make it better.
But it will take a loooooooooong way to perfect. maybe fifty years,maybe a century.
For now,most of us,just want a second place,no need to be first,no need to rule the world,just not to be ruled by America.
And honestly(luckly),we see what America do to stop Japan.
At that time,Japan had no military force,Japan had nearly no diplomatic freedom,Japan just had economic power.
Then Amercia cut Japan down.
So,American hegemony is not a good thing to us,to any other countris,every country who want to be great will hate it.
Of course every country want to be great,what kind of fool will stop himself for America interest?

[Rio Cana]

According to the US defense department, China's military has surpassed the US in "missile development, the number of warships and air defense systems. For more information take a look at the following - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvfNORC496c

However, the US is still tops when it comes to those long range bombers which carry stealth missiles.

[The Rich Port]

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

Are you seriously citing things that happened 50-100 years ago?

The Ukrainian aggression is currently happening.

[FutureAmerica]

The US still has hegemony by being a massive economy and global market. It has the largest and most powerful military by far. It's true secret weapon is it ability to innovate. China may challenge the US, but their evil authoritarian government will ultimately destroy China's growth and its ability to compete against the US.

[New yugoslavaia]

The US still has hegemony by being a massive economy and global market. It has the largest and most powerful military by far. It's true secret weapon is it ability to innovate. China may challenge the US, but their evil authoritarian government will ultimately destroy China's growth and its ability to compete against the US.

Yes, but America will still one day fall. All empires/great powers do.

[The Rich Port]

The US still has hegemony by being a massive economy and global market. It has the largest and most powerful military by far. It's true secret weapon is it ability to innovate. China may challenge the US, but their evil authoritarian government will ultimately destroy China's growth and its ability to compete against the US.

Donald Trump is doing a good job of minimizing the scope of the military's ability to serve as a tool of diplomacy. Having the best military in the world doesn't really matter much if we can't solo an alliance, which, even with such a big military, no country can.

It's what got Germany destroyed twice in two separate world wars.

Well that and a shitty Wunderwaffe mentality but anyway, details.

[Bassoe]

China may challenge the US, but their evil authoritarian government will ultimately destroy China's growth and its ability to compete against the US.

If an evil authoritarian government™ throws more budget at research and development than the heroic plucky democracy™ and doesn't have ridiculous ideological blinders like nazi germany disregarding nuclear research as 'jewish physics' or the soviet union causing mass starvation with lysenkoism, this is not the case.

[Punished UMN]

The US still has hegemony by being a massive economy and global market. It has the largest and most powerful military by far. It's true secret weapon is it ability to innovate. China may challenge the US, but their evil authoritarian government will ultimately destroy China's growth and its ability to compete against the US.

No it doesn't, being the strongest country is not what hegemony is.