Question for the HL brehs, Is America todays great Empire?

[CHL]

Yes, as a result of the competition not stacking up.
In 50 years though, China and/or the EU are gonna top the US in economic control but the US are still going to have an iron grip on global culture and military presence.

Will the EU be a single State equivalent to the US in 50 years?

 

[Camile.Bidan]

The great empire of stagnant wages and continually fleeing capital, sure.

Stagnant? I received three consecutive annual 20%+ raises In the last three years. Doesn't seem stagnant to me.

 

[CHL]

Stagnant? I received three consecutive annual 20%+ raises In the last three years. Doesn't seem stagnant to me.

I forgot, the US revolves around you, gundam, and all statistical data would of course mirror what you say.

 

[Camile.Bidan]

I forgot, the US revolves around you, gundam, and all statistical data would of course mirror what you say.

The point is wages have not been stagnant for professionals Including tradesmen. Wages have been stagnant ,and I suspect even declining, for semi-skilled and unskilled labor. There are various global trends responsible for that. It's not simply an American issue.

 

[NZA]

It's somewhere in between what you two said. They use significant forms of hard and soft power.

how are you quantifying this?

 

[Cynic]

Yes. And that's not a good thing for the vast majority of people.

When has it ever ? The whole world starves and cacs get fat.

 

[CHL]

how are you quantifying this?

I don't have a rigorous method to quantify it

Just given what hard power entails (military power, most economic power) and what soft power entails (diplomatic, cultural, political power, some forms of economic power), and given major examples the US uses both to a high degree compared to other States.

Just a few:

Economic (hard): sanctions on Russia, Iran.
Economic (soft) foreign aid that is tied and under conditions that involve trading with the US. So specifically in 2015 the US sending $600 million in ODA to Indonesia, Phillipines, Vietnam and Cambodia.

Cultural: Radio Free Asia, the Fullbright Program (largest educational scholarship program in the world)

Military: exercises with South Korea near NK, flying over the Chinese no fly zone around the Senkaku islands

Political: rejecting China's claim of sovereign control over Taiwan, and the unfortunate and disproportionally high influence they wield over the UN; for example in 2005 Kofi Annan put forward a report suggesting reforms for the UN and the US threatened to block the 2006-07 budget unless it was massively watered down.


These are just some examples and mostly just from the Asia-pacific region.


Also this is worth looking through:

The world’s most comprehensive ranking of global soft power

 

[squiddyB]

Will the EU be a single State equivalent to the US in 50 years?

It's a question of degrees, the USA is after-all a collection of states that have quite a lot of leeway in terms of laws, economic policies, and cultural differences. The EU will be a whole lot closer in 50 years (or collapse as some eastern and southern countries fail), enough that you can compare it to the US as a singular entity when it comes to economic cohesiveness (you could almost say the EU is a single entity economics-wise atm, but it's not quite there.)

 

[AyahuascaSippin]

I feel you on China, but dont you think we've already infiltrated them (and the rest of the world) through our culture which we export and everyone eats up?

The culture does have a far reach but that doesn't obscure the anti american sentiment. Even European countries seem to distance theirselves in their media, despite adhering to the cultural narrative. Diabetes/heart attacks in a bun, music without a message, good guys are white and always win movies etc will have little to no baring on the financial clusterfukk we have imposed on ourselves. Ive spent a year and a half teaching english around china, and believe me when i say your early 20s-middle aged mainstream media and mcdonalds type of guy will have more in common with a teenage girl or reclusive social outcast type than most people out there.

define "china"

because a communist china didnt exist in the 1500s

Youre literally just playing with semantics. Communist China arose out of Imperial influence. Much like India, whos gdp was three times that of western europe and 1/3rd of the global gdp, China were a self sufficient nation, while seeking to consolidate its neighbouring territories. Both were effectively brought to a halt and eventually suffered all of the symptoms of imperialized countries (decreased national wealth, crumbling social infrastructure, largely illiterate generations and a huge population boom, ultimately resulting in famine and increased inequality) communist china was the result of an attempt to manage the more turbulent factors while rebuilding the controllable ones, and it looks like it worked a treat.

Funny thing is now the nation which seems to have recovered from all of the hallmarks of a commonwealth country, is striking deals with a continent that has struggled with the issue for thousands of years, and kept in that situation through repeated intervention, biological warfare and corrupt officials with blank world bank cheques, and the 'empire' does not like it.

 

[Type Username Here]

eh soft power just means your ability to attract people to you culturally. while america does use a lot of hard power by coercing and bombing other nations, the country spends way more energy trying to attract other countries culturally. the international market for american shyt is huge. blue jeans, fast food, sneakers, american movies all of this pushes other countries to consume more stuff and buy into american markets.

Vietnam is the best example of this. They spent 14 years on a war that was ultimately lost but only took a couple of months to begin making Vietnam into a factory for American companies.

Following the war, Hanoi pursued the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United States, initially in order to obtain US$3.3 billion in reconstruction aid, which President Richard M. Nixon had secretly promised after the Paris Agreement was signed in 1973

Representatives of two American banks—the Bank of America and First National City Bank—were invited to discuss trade possibilities, and American oil companies were informed that they were welcome to apply for concessions to search for oil in offshore Vietnamese waters

Vietnam is currently the United States’ 29th largest trading partner. U.S. exports to Vietnam have doubled in just five years, amounting to $5.2 billion in 2013. Bilateral trade between the two nations now totals $30 billion a year — a 134-fold increase from 1994.

With direct investment amounting to $10.6 billion in December, the United States ranks seventh among foreign investors in Vietnam. American companies are gaining new customers and contracts while contributing to Vietnam’s development.

Despite the infamous history of the Vietnam War, Vietnam today is one of the most pro-American countries in Southeast Asia with 78% of Vietnamese people viewing the U.S. favorably in 2015

 

[mbewane]

eh soft power just means your ability to attract people to you culturally. while america does use a lot of hard power by coercing and bombing other nations, the country spends way more energy trying to attract other countries culturally. the international market for american shyt is huge. blue jeans, fast food, sneakers, american movies all of this pushes other countries to consume more stuff and buy into american markets.

True indeed.... Potent mix. What you describe is how the US has ben dominating Europe for example since WW2, convincing them that there's "no other way". Most Euros don't even understand that though.

@NZA didn't see you quoted me, I agree to the fact that it's a mix of both and soft power is indeed a big part of US dominance, especially over Europe but over other areas as well.

 

[Poh SIti Dawn]

america is the biggest empire of today but it's not like empires of old. the reach of america is truly global while old empires could only have a presence in "the known world" which typically excluded all of the americas, most of subsaharan africa, and most of the far east.

the other difference is old empires physically dominated their territory with massive armies and navies, while america relies on soft power to do the bulk of its dominating. our military is tiny compared to the size of the empire.

Not fully true, america has base's all over. I think that's where the US has out thought the past empires. Keep a bit of a presence but don't dominate an entire state, its too much work and to have an influence and a smaller presence is a better system

 

[mbewane]

Will the EU be a single State equivalent to the US in 50 years?

As a Euro I would hope it would, but I severely doubt it, for a series of reasons (historical, economical, cultural, etc).

 

[NZA]

Not fully true, america has base's all over. I think that's where the US has out thought the past empires. Keep a bit of a presence but don't dominate an entire state, its too much work and to have an influence and a smaller presence is a better system

for all our presence, ISIS and the radical remnants of the arab spring couldnt care less. russian separatists in ukraine dont care either

we have bases almost everywhere, but only so much hard power to spare. if you have a small fighting force and limited political will, your hard power is actually smaller than the reach of those bases.

 

[Poh SIti Dawn]

for all our presence, ISIS and the radical remnants of the arab spring couldnt care less. russian separatists in ukraine dont care either

we have bases almost everywhere, but only so much hard power to spare. if you have a small fighting force and limited political will, your hard power is actually smaller than the reach of those bases.

Yes, but we're comparing the old world to the new world. With that being said, Isis and Russians can run freely, of course. With the point that you made of the old world domineering what they knew as the 'world' at that time was limited. Being realistic there's no way one state is going to be able to shut every group of insurgents that rise, but that doesn't mean they can't suppress them and fight back.

Isis and the Russians exist, but they're fires that can be put out if we really wanted to. Let's be realistic