How Long Will America Lead the World?

[jAZ]

I guess this is a "Part 2" to this thread...

Intel's Andy Grove is more blunt. "America ... [is going] down the tubes," he says, "and the worst part is nobody knows it. They're all in denial, patting themselves on the back, as the Titanic heads for the iceberg full speed ahead."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13123358/site/newsweek/

How Long Will America Lead the World?

The United States is still the dominant force in technology, innovation, productivity and profits. But Americans don't quite realize how fast the rest of the world is catching up.

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

June 12, 2006 issue - Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, held in London on June 22, 1897, was one of the grandest fetes the world has ever seen: 46,000 troops and 11 colonial prime ministers arrived from the four corners of the earth to pay homage to their sovereign. The event was as much a celebration of Victoria's 60 years on the throne as it was of Britain's superpower status. In 1897, Queen Victoria ruled over a quarter of the world's population and a fifth of its territory, all connected by the latest marvel of British technology, the telegraph, and patrolled by the Royal Navy, which was larger than the next two navies put together. "The world took note," says the historian Karl Meyer. The New York Times gushed: "We are a part ... of the Greater Britain which seems so plainly destined to dominate this planet'."

An 8-year-old boy, Arnold Toynbee, who became a great historian, watched the parade while sitting on his uncle's shoulders. "I remember the atmosphere," he later wrote. "It was: well, here we are on the top of the world, and we have arrived at this peak to stay there—forever! There is, of course, a thing called history, but history is something unpleasant that happens to other people."

Well, Americans have replaced Britons atop the world, and we are now worried that history is happening to us. History has arrived in the form of "Three Billion New Capitalists," as Clyde Prestowitz's recent book puts it, people from countries like China, India and the former Soviet Union, which all once scorned the global market economy but are now enthusiastic and increasingly sophisticated participants in it. They are poorer, hungrier and in some cases well trained, and will inevitably compete with Americans and America for a slice of the pie. A Goldman Sachs study concludes that by 2045, China will be the largest economy in the world, replacing the United States.

It is not just writers like Prestowitz who are sounding alarms. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, reflects on the growing competence and cost advantage of countries like China and even Mexico and says, "It's unclear how many manufacturers will choose to keep their businesses in the United States." Intel's Andy Grove is more blunt. "America ... [is going] down the tubes," he says, "and the worst part is nobody knows it. They're all in denial, patting themselves on the back, as the Titanic heads for the iceberg full speed ahead."

Much of the concern centers on the erosion of science and technology in the U.S., particularly in education. Eight months ago, the national academies of sciences, engineering and medicine came together to put out a report that argued that the "scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many nations are gathering strength." President Bush has also jumped onto the competitiveness issue and recently proposed increases in funding certain science programs. (He has not, however, reversed a steady decline in funding for biomedical sciences.) Some speak of these new challenges with an air of fatalism. The national academies' report points out that China and India combined graduate 950,000 engineers every year, compared with 70,000 in America; that for the cost of one chemist or engineer in the U.S. a company could hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India; that of the 120 $1 billion-plus chemical plants being built around the world one is in the United States and 50 are in China.

There are some who see the decline of science and technology as part of a larger cultural decay. A country that once adhered to a Puritan ethic of delayed gratification has become one that revels in instant pleasures. We're losing interest in the basics—math, manufacturing, hard work, savings—and becoming a postindustrial society that specializes in consumption and leisure. "More people will graduate in the United States in 2006 with sports-exercise degrees than electrical-engineering degrees," says Immelt. "So, if we want to be the massage capital of the world, we're well on our way."


There is a puzzle in all this, however, which is that these trends and features have been around for a while, and they do not seem to have had an impact—so far at least—on the bottom line, which is GDP growth. Over the past 20 years, America's growth rate has averaged just over 3 percent, a full percentage point higher than that of Germany and France. (Japan averaged 2.3 percent over the same period.) Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, again a full percentage point higher than the European average. In 1980, the United States made up 22 percent of world output; today that has risen to 29 percent. The U.S. is currently ranked the second most competitive economy in the world (by the World Economic Forum), and is first in technology and innovation, first in technological readiness, first in company spending for research and technology and first in the quality of its research institutions. China does not come within 30 countries of the U.S. on any of these points, and India breaks the top 10 on only one count: the availability of scientists and engineers. In virtually every sector that advanced industrial countries participate in, U.S. firms lead the world in productivity and profits.

The situation with regard to higher education is even more dramatic. A new report, "The Future of European Universities," from the London-based Center for European Reform, points out that of the world's 20 top universities, 18 are American. The U.S. invests 2.6 percent of its GDP on higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. The situation in the sciences is particularly striking. A list of where the world's 1,000 best computer scientists were educated shows that the top 10 schools were all American. Our spending on R&D remains higher than Europe's, and our collaborations between business and educational institutions are unmatched anywhere in the world. America remains by far the most attractive destination for students, taking 30 percent of the total number of foreign students globally. These advantages will not be erased easily because the structure of European and Japanese universities—mostly state-run bureaucracies—is unlikely to change. And while China and India are creating new institutions, it is not that easy to create a world-class university out of whole cloth in a few decades.

(snip)

The best evidence of this lack of fear is that no one is willing to talk about any kind of serious solutions that impose any pain on society. Politicians talk a great deal about competitiveness and propose new programs and initiatives. But the proposals are small potatoes compared with, say, farm subsidies, and no one would ever suggest trimming the latter to dramatically increase spending on the sciences. The great competitive problems that the American economy faces would require strong and sometimes unpleasant medicine. Our entitlement programs are set to bankrupt the country, the health-care system is an expensive time bomb, our savings rate is zero, we are borrowing 80 percent of the world's savings and our national bill for litigation is now larger than for research and development. None of these problems is a deep-seated cultural mark of decay. They are products of government policy. Different policies could easily correct them. But taking such steps means doing something that is hard and unpopular.

The genius of America's success is that the United States is a rich country with many of the attributes of a scrappy, developing society. It is open, flexible and adventurous, often unmindful of history and tradition. Its people work hard, putting in longer hours than those in other rich countries. Much of this has do to with the history and culture of the society. A huge amount of it has to do with immigration, which keeps America constantly renewed by streams of hardworking people, desperate to succeed. Science laboratories in America are more than half filled with foreign students and immigrants. Without them, America's leadership position in the sciences would collapse. That is why America, alone among industrial nations, has been able to do the nearly impossible: renew its power and stay at the top of the game for a century now. We can expand our science programs—and we should—but we will never be able to compete with India and China in the production of engineers. No matter what we do, they will have more, and cheaper, labor. What we can do is take the best features of the America system—openness, innovation, immigration and flexibility—and enhance them, so that they can respond to new challenges by creating new industries, new technologies and new jobs, as we have in the past.

Our greatest danger is that when the American public does begin to get scared, they will try to shut down the very features of the country that have made it so successful. They will want to shut out foreign companies, be less welcoming to immigrants and close themselves off from competition and collaboration. Over the past year there have already been growing paranoia on all these fronts. If we go down this path, we will remain a rich country and a stable one. We will be less troubled by the jarring changes that the new world is pushing forward. But like Britain after Queen Victoria's reign, it will be a future of slow, steady national decline. History will happen to us after all.

(full article at the link above)

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by recxjake

seriously though what do you think we are leading in?

Not manufacturing
Not education
Not the health of its society

Leading in oil consumption
Leading in corruption
Leading in the distruction of the planet

Then why don't you move to where it's better? While your there at your new and improved school you can learn to spell destruction

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

"It is nowhere written that the American empire goes on forever."

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

We don't nor have we ever had an empire. We have a constitutional democracy.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Oregon chief

The idea of the Unitied States of America is the idea that people of all types can live together in freedom and liberty. The U.S. is not just a country but a way of life that the world should aspire to achieve. Respect for one another and the chance to pursue happiness. The U.S. will be around for a very long time.

Very well said. Nice to hear from someone else who really gets it. America is the only country in the world founded on an idea instead of ethnicity. We bring in others from around the world who think like this and guess what, we prosper.

Do we have a problem with a certain part of our country obsessed with infintile and useless pursuits? Yes, and they dilute the numbers. The facts are the American Economy is the strongest in the world and our military and it's technology is the best in the world. Why? Because of how we were founded.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The book "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman paints a pretty dim future in terms of America's domination of the world. Basically, we have had all the opportunities available to us for years, so our education system has become lazy. Students simply aren't motivated to challenge themselves as much. Meanwhile, other countries like China have been working their asses off just to try and survive. Now that they are getting opportunities via the worldwide availability and the internet, there are tons of extremely knowledgeable and extremely motivated individuals coming out of those countries. Chances are, our reign as the dominant nation of the world will be over in a decade or less.

Ok wiseguy, one question, who invented the Internet? We did.

This is the same crap that people spout whenever they feel we are not getting loved internationally. Check out some of the Newsweek covers from the 70's. Only then the issues were The Soviets and Western Europe and fear of the Japanese.

PS - Thomas Friedman is a great writer and Journalist but he's also a guilt ridden, bed wetting liberal who feels bad that the US is a world leader

[Mark M]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

America is the only country in the world founded on an idea instead of ethnicity.

really? How many blacks helped write the Constitution? Any Jews? A few Native Americans in there? How's about Muslims? Any Women?

Don't get me wrong -- the theory our country was founded on is the best ever. But the practice has never matched that ideal -- not in our history, and certainly not in our present.

All we can do is work hard and try to ensure that it does come to fruition in our future.

MM
~~

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The flip side of that, though, is that the most ambitious of the third-worlders come here, giving us both a short-term advantage and a long-term edge. It's not so much about the people, it's about the political, social, and physical infrastructure that allows people to thrive. I'm not sure that China has that infrastructure.

Rain Man, good point. I've been to China on business 18 times since 1991 to this year. The Chinese have a chance to have a great country which would be good for the world. There not even close to having a good government, legal system or human rights. These are HUGE drawbacks for them. I believe that China will one day become a true democracy and that will be a great thing for humanity (afterall there are 1.4 billion of them) but until then they will suffer from rampant greed, political corruption on a huge scale and huge social changes as the haves and have nots square off in the next 10 to 20 years.

Right now a successful chinese guy under 40 would say he's happy that he can make money and provide quality of life for his family. He knows he's not free but it beats food rationing that he had when he was a kid. Now just wait until this guys kid grows up playing nintendo, having nice things and being highly educated. That generation will make changes. The big question is will it lead to a civil war or will it be a peaceful change to democracy and re-unification with Taiwan. Time will tell.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Mark M

really? How many blacks helped write the Constitution? Any Jews? A few Native Americans in there? How's about Muslims? Any Women?

Don't get me wrong -- the theory our country was founded on is the best ever. But the practice has never matched that ideal -- not in our history, and certainly not in our present.

All we can do is work hard and try to ensure that it does come to fruition in our future.

MM
~~

I agree the practice doesn't meet the ideal. That's what's so amazing about our founding documents. They had the vision and idealism to write these words and to risk their life to do it. These ideals are still our goals though. Being American is a way of thought it has nothing to do with being Muslim, jewish, black, Indian or a man or a woman. The fact that not all of these people helped write the constitution doesn't matter. Everyone is equal and everyone who has the talent gets a chance to add to the country in their own way. We're the only nation in the world whose even close to meeting these ideals

[Mark M]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Everyone is equal and everyone who has the talent gets a chance to add to the country in their own way.

Well, unless you're gay. Then you're only equal up to a point.

And a woman, since they only make about $.76 for every $1 a man makes.

But other than those and a few other examples ... yeah. You're right.

We're the only nation in the world whose even close to meeting these ideals.

Actually, England, Australia, and the Netherlands also come pretty close.

Again, don't get me wrong -- I DO love this country (if I didn't I'd move somewhere else ... trust me).

But there are some in this country (including many in positions of power) who don;t believe that everyone is equal. They may say it, but their actions sure as **** don't match what they say.

MM
~~

[thepascalblaze]

recxjake makes a point worthy of thought and discussion. "leads the world " in what?

Maybe more importantly, to where is the U.S. leading the world?

I, for one, love the U.S. It is my duty as a citizen to take notice of what is happening. Statistics are one source of info, though the selective distribution and downright distortion of them is problematic. It is difficult to work full time or more, raise a family and seek out sources of corporate news and the fragmented statistics they commonly distribute, and successfully build an accurate picture of what is happening on a global economic scale.

When Clinton was caught with his pants down, I didn't see a mass exodus of people who complained. They did what a good American should. They organized, vocalized, and voted... that is what makes this a great country.

It is not without problems, clearly. But we are leading many people into a pseudo-free market. The real question I see as the most important is this. Is a world economy that bases growth on increasing consumption sustainable? On a sphere, A limited physical shape, it is not... but how long can we use the engine of increasing consumption, which leads to rapid technological advance, to an economic advantage. By "economic advantage" here, I mean an advance in technology that can create a curve to a sustainable economy with an engine based in creative use of renewable resources, still leading to technological advances.

When do we need to start the turn to sustainability?

The major political/economic question of the future is possibly revolving around a world debate that is corporate/anticorporate in nature,

I suggest all interested watch the documentary "The Corporation." It is loaded with history of the concept of corporations and, though the subject matter is inherently dry, the producers make it enertaining enough to watch all the way through.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The flip side of that, though, is that the most ambitious of the third-worlders come here, giving us both a short-term advantage and a long-term edge. It's not so much about the people, it's about the political, social, and physical infrastructure that allows people to thrive. I'm not sure that China has that infrastructure.

I don't argue that we won't see a lot of benefit from the sudden inflow of knowledge workers into the world's workforce. It's not so much about who is the "best off;" we'll all be better as more knowledge is put into society. However, I do think we'll see the playing field being leveled significantly in terms of who controlls things overall. I'm certainly no expert, but the simple strength in numbers gives China and India a pretty big advantage if they can get their infrastructures worked out. As virtual environments emerge as being as important if not more so than physical environments, they may have a significant advantage.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Ok wiseguy, one question, who invented the Internet? We did.

This is the same crap that people spout whenever they feel we are not getting loved internationally. Check out some of the Newsweek covers from the 70's. Only then the issues were The Soviets and Western Europe and fear of the Japanese.

PS - Thomas Friedman is a great writer and Journalist but he's also a guilt ridden, bed wetting liberal who feels bad that the US is a world leader

I don't think that the origin of an invention has anything to do with who controls it, actually. Indian outsourcing is the direct result of the overinvestment of American companies during the internet boom. Just because we're the ones that created it doesn't mean we reap the largest benefits.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Mark M

Well, unless you're gay. Then you're only equal up to a point.

I've got a gay Uncle and he's making money hand over fist in Miami with his life partner guy and no one is beating the shite out of him for it. Yeah, he can't get formally married but that's a different argument and has no bearing on his life.

And a woman, since they only make about $.76 for every $1 a man makes.

People should make their money based on ability not on gender. However, there are some exceptions. Women tend to get pregnant and then leave the workforce. So if your a big dog company looking to groom a high end exec. officer for the long term then you might think twice about losing years of training and money based on an fact of biology. That's the truth.

But other than those and a few other examples ... yeah. You're right.


Actually, England, Australia, and the Netherlands also come pretty close.

I've done business in all of these countries. First their populations are tiny and their economies are relatively small. But if you want to compare their governmental systems then you'd be better off comparing them to Canada. Socialism can only work in small countries and that's what your seeing in England and Der Nederlands. Australia has a model more like our own.

Again, don't get me wrong -- I DO love this country (if I didn't I'd move somewhere else ... trust me).

But there are some in this country (including many in positions of power) who don;t believe that everyone is equal. They may say it, but their actions sure as **** don't match what they say.

If you want to be more specific great. I'll just tell you if your talking about politicians then you need to vote them out of office.

MM
~~

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I don't think that the origin of an invention has anything to do with who controls it, actually. Indian outsourcing is the direct result of the overinvestment of American companies during the internet boom. Just because we're the ones that created it doesn't mean we reap the largest benefits.

Sure we do. How can you say that? Do you ever leave Emporia or do you just stare at that giant silo coors can all day? Let me help you out with ONE example - - - Microsoft. Without the Internet who would need all that software for their X-box 360? That company didn't even exist until the 70's. I could go on and on forever with the advantages of having America invent the Internet and the Trillions it's put into our economy. The techologies that are just around the corner that will be started here in the USA will be astounding in the next 20 years. Medicine alone will be worth billions upon billions.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Sure we do. How can you say that? Do you ever leave Emporia or do you just stare at that giant silo coors can all day? Let me help you out with ONE example - - - Microsoft. Without the Internet who would need all that software for their X-box 360? That company didn't even exist until the 70's. I could go on and on forever with the advantages of having America invent the Internet and the Trillions it's put into our economy. The techologies that are just around the corner that will be started here in the USA will be astounding in the next 20 years. Medicine alone will be worth billions upon billions.

You're still talking short-term benefits here. I won't argue that we haven't seen the most benefit from the internet so far. However, to assume that just because we came up with it we will always have control over it is shortsighted at best and foolhardy at worst. All I can say is that if you are planning strategy for a company based on the assumption that we'll always be the best, you've got a rough ride coming.

P.S. I have no idea what Coors can silo you're referring to.

[Psyko Tek]

HOW we really beat communisum...

cable TV and rock music

the same will americaniaze china

our weapons now our video games and the internet.

China has put the clamps on google but they have good hackers and so do we...


can't stop the signal