• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Will US dominance on the international stage grow or shrink in the 21st century?

The whole concept of "dominance on the international stage" is still seeming too slippery/nebulous for me to comment on, because I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, or things.

Personally, I feel like we as a country of people have been ceding the power of national sovereignty to the global financial sector and multinational corporations for decades now, and this trend will continue indefinitely no matter how popular "we" test in polls internationally.

I guess I find some assumptions which are packed into the very question incorrect.
 
kellyb said:
The whole concept of "dominance on the international stage" is still seeming too slippery/nebulous for me to comment on, because I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, or things.
Click to expand...


Post-WWII, the US has clearly been in the position of "First among Equals", with lots of those "Equals" only being such as a political courtesy.

With military organizations like NATO, economic groups like the G20, and policy organizations like the UN, the US was considered the leading member. They had the money, the military, and the moral high ground such that they were able to lead or influence countries around the world. The USSR aspired to such levels of influence, but never actually got there. This political and economic dominance lead to cultural dominance as well - there's a reason why everyone in the world watches Hollywood movies, while things like Bollywood movies are mostly a curiosity. There's a reason rock and roll became popular world-wide. The US set the tone for the whole last half of the 20th century. That's what they mean.


Personally, I feel like we as a country of people have been ceding the power of national sovereignty to the global financial sector and multinational corporations for decades now, and this trend will continue indefinitely no matter how popular "we" test in polls internationally.

I guess I find some assumptions which are packed into the very question incorrect.
Click to expand...


And how many of those "multinational" corporations started off as US businesses?

Of the Forbes Global 2000 listings of the biggest companies, over 500 are American.
 
What difference does it make if they started off as American?
 
theprestige said:
Does the rest of the world actually want the US to have "clout and respect"? I get the impression they don't.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, and while my reaction to the Trump election has been mostly bewilderment and bemusement in equal measure.

I'd rather things stayed mostly the same.

If the US isn't the biggest power in the world, that means that China or Russia would be, and don't get me wrong, you have your problems America and I wish you could solve some of them, but rather you than Putin or Mao Se "life term" Dictator.

Trump has caused the US standing in the world to decline markedly, but in the long term he'll just be an amusing footnote/trivial pursuit question most likely.
 
kellyb said:
What difference does it make if they started off as American?
Click to expand...



You asked what "dominance on the international stage" meant, and then you wonder why the national origin of a company that dominates the international stage is important? :confused:
 
Horatius said:
You asked what "dominance on the international stage" meant, and then you wonder why the national origin of a company that dominates the international stage is important? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes. What relevance does a massive multinational's country of origin hold in this day and age?
 
kellyb said:
Yes. What relevance does a massive multinational's country of origin hold in this day and age?
Click to expand...



Because its country of origin still exerts a cultural influence, both on the company itself, and the people who interact with the company. The US's influence isn't just based on military and economic dominance, it's also in culture and how we think. Do you really not understand how having a large percentage of the world's population eating at McDonald's and drinking Coke promotes the interests of the US?

And what exactly do think budding businessmen in others countries think when they notice that a country with about 5% of the world's population have spawned over 25% of the largest companies? Do you really not understand how thinking "I should act like an American if I want to succeed" promotes the interests of the US?
 
Loss Leader said:
We'll shrink in importance as the rest of the world catches up to us. World War II gave us a pretty big boost, but China can't stay down forever. And if Europe ever gets its act together and really unifies, we'll be tied for second at best.
Click to expand...

Assuming a unified Europe is stable, that is.

I don't know what other power could rise to match the US, but I think it's clear that the latter's power will wane.
 
When I was suggesting that Nation States might not be the most important categorization in the mid to far future I wasn't being so pessimistic about it. I wasn't suggesting we're all gonna break off into ideological fiefdoms or be slaves to AppleGoogleAmazonCo or something.

I meant it in a much more hopeful way, that as time goes on and the world becomes more connected our geographical location won't matter as much.
 
I think that as the world becomes more connected, our geographical location will continue to matter. Ultimately, our physical location - what we see when we get up from the computer and go outside, who we meet when we want to have a physical human interaction, what laws claim jurisdiction over our physicality - will be our primary distinguishing feature. I could be anywhere. In a sense, I'm anywhere and everywhere for the most part. But there will always be a part of me that's physically here, and not anywhere else. That's going to continue to matter a lot, I think, regardless of how connected we get.
 
Horatius said:
Do you really not understand how having a large percentage of the world's population eating at McDonald's and drinking Coke promotes the interests of the US?
Click to expand...

Not really. If Coca Cola was a "German company", I don't think it would have any measurable impact on my life at all.
Or if Bayer aspirin was an American-originally product.

And I think the international corporate elites are effectively "denationalized" for the most part, at least.

The distinction between America and the world is disappearing because of the triumph of American power and the appeal of American society and culture. The economic approach focuses on economic globalization as a transcendent force breaking down national boundaries, merging national economies into a single global whole, and rapidly eroding the authority and functions of national governments.
Click to expand...

In 1953, the head of General Motors, nominated to be secretary of defense, proclaimed, "What's good for General Motors is good for America." He was widely criticized for not saying that what's good for America is good for General Motors. Either way, both he and his critics presumed some coincidence of interest between corporation and country. Now, however, multinational corporations see their interests as separate from America's interests.
Click to expand...

Together with the "globalizing elites" of other countries, these American executives inhabit a "socio-cultural bubble" apart from the cultures of individual nations and communicate with each other in a social science-y version of English, which Hunter and Yates label "global speak."
Click to expand...

"One thing globalization has done", a consultant to Archer Daniels Midland said, "is to transfer the power of governments to the global consumer." As the global market replaces the national community, the national citizen gives way to the global consumer.
Click to expand...
 
It's like a horse race where the front runner, USA, had a big lead which is now diminishing.

The finish line is the end of Type 13 civilization*, as a result of global environmental/economic catastrophe and/or catastrophic war. No one knows exactly where the finish line is.

Does it really matter which horse has the lead when that finish line is reached?

I'm just proud to be a part owner of USA, which has the lead right now. Because "right now" is all that matters right now. Right?

*a "Lexx" term
 
Last edited:
Using your race analogy, it does matter how big the lead is to gauge the effort needed to stay ahead of the pack. The US is doubtlessly wasting more money on defense than other countries entire military budget.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Using your race analogy, it does matter how big the lead is to gauge the effort needed to stay ahead of the pack. The US is doubtlessly wasting more money on defense than other countries entire military budget.
Click to expand...

I once saw a horse bite another one when it tried to take the lead. Just reached over and bit him pretty hard.

Maybe that's the strategy for winning the race, rather than sensibly conserving energy. Uber-aggressive dominance posturing.

Kind of pointless though, when the finish line is the edge of a cliff.
 
In response to the possible decline of nation-states as an organizing principle, my counterargument is China's Xi. And a few other dictators very much rooted in specific physical locations.
 
But I question that, Minoosh. I suspect that the business sector has more influence with Xi than the concerns of the Chinese citizen. Sure, his power physical location is China but his political power is rooted in the marketplace.
 
Horatius said:
And Trump has made it clear that, in the long term, no agreements with the US can be trusted.
Click to expand...



The US government has proven their word mean nothing in regards to treaties. Every single treaty signed with Native American groups was broken by the American government. Bear in mind with the belief of American exceptionalism - many Americans such as John Bolton feel the US should not be bound by treaty or international law, and can do whatever it damn well pleases
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom