Even if we transition to a multipolar world order and renewed great power competition, America will still be the strongest and most secure global power. It has hegemony in the western hemisphere through its enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine; it is protected by the two largest oceans; it has historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to two regional powers on both sides of the ocean (UK and Ireland in Europe, Australia and NZ in the Asia Pacific, Five Eyes, etc.); it is by far the leader in soft power (music, movies, TV, technology, English language, etc.); and most importantly, it has the strongest military by far. Despite strategic defeats in the Middle East and South Asia, US officers gained tons of battlefield experience and the ability to test its weaponry. So even if the US now has to deal with a hegemonic challenger in East Asia (China) and more assertive one in Europe (Russia), its geography and demography give it advantages no other great power has.
>America will still be the strongest and most secure global power.
>and most importantly, it has the strongest military by far.
"America" (The U.S.) will likely collapse from internal conflict, possibly precipitated or accompanied by external provocation (cyber warfare, infrastructure attacks, propaganda), that will divide the country and the military. Imagine the U.S. during the Civil War/War between the States. This time there won't be borders between the sides. How is a country facing such internal strife going to be able to control, let alone worry, about global affairs beyond it's borders?
I think the key unmentioned weakness of the United States is our economic system and monetary policy. Especially because of our ever increasing debt and deficit spending.
Yeah, I don't really get that either. If push comes to shove and we (the US) devalue our currency, then all the other foreign debt holders are left holding the bag while we just suffer through a couple years of recession.
Exchange rates are indeed set by markets, but then all a central bank has to do to devalue its currency is to sell its own currency for another (or buy assets denominated in another currency, which is essentially the same thing with extra steps)
At the crudest level, what do you suppose would happen if the U.S. Treasury/Federal Reserve suddenly decide that every dollar-denominated account of $n got a "stimulus payment" of $2n?
That’s a very indirect way to devalue a currency for foreign exchange purposes. Sure, you’d be massively increasing that supply, but it’s doesn’t necessarily follow that said supply would flow directly into forex markets.
Usually beneath the veneer of such questions it seems to be some sort of libertarian/crypto fan/anti fiat currency ideologue. Rarely based on sober analysis.
I think it would represent a fairly strong change in global power structures, but like you I don’t think the sky would fall.
It's quite a long read, but I can tell you it doesn't come from a libertarian perspective. It does touch on Bitcoin, but near the end in one of a few theoretical "where things could go" perspective.
>"I think it would represent a fairly strong change in global power structures, but like you I don’t think the sky would fall."
Agreed, it would be shocking but life would go on. We would just have to live with a new international monetary paradigm.
I’ve read Alden’s analysis before. I can’t say that I have found any particular weaknesses with it.
But as she says, such a change could take place in different ways, with different implications. If it were to happen suddenly it would be a shock, but that isn’t necessarily the case.
Most signs point to a multipolar world order isn’t he future, and outside a complete internal political collapse, the US would in all likelihood be one of those poles.
Broadly speaking, the US has to run trade deficits in order for the rest of the world to have the dollars they must use to buy oil. This severely handicaps our ability to manufacture and produce things domestically. During the past century the US Government took on lots of debt with the understanding that our economy would naturally grow to cover the obligations. But given this international monetary system, I struggle to see how the US can manage to grow it's way out of all the debt we've made for ourselves. I would like to go on, but Lyn is a far better writer than I.
Alden’s analysis is certainly thought provoking, but it doesn’t made broad statements about the impact on US global power, which is the topic at hand here.
Gotcha. The article itself doesn't go into the global power aspect, but I was looking at it through the lens of implications. Mainly, how the trade deficit has made us particularly vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and how the domestic knowledge to produce certain vital things (like chip manufacturing) has been gutted. Confidence in the US and it's ability to deliver on it's obligations also diminishes as the debt grows and the growth of our economy stalls. I just don't see how we can grow our way out of debt after reading just how badly the deck is stacked against non-tech and non-intellectual sectors of the economy.
The implication of the article, though, is that eventually the regime will end, and the structural factors that force the US in trade deficits will end. This will allow the dollar to finally be devalued, and the value of exports to rise, resetting the ability for the US to build its industrial base.
Also, the notion that domestic knowledge on how to build things like chips has been gutted is just flat out false. Intel is still close to the cutting edge in chip fabrication, they just aren’t #1 anymore.
This "buy oil" stuff is a non-sequitur from an economic POV. A current-account deficit is the flip-side of a capital-account surplus, i.e. of money flowing into the U.S. as investment, from whatever source. Far from handicapping "ability to produce and manufacture things domestically", a persistent trade deficit may thus be a reflection of that very ability.
Every (at least most) past conflicts that toppled the dominant players brought with it a new type of combat that those players were not ready for. Troop tactics, air power, etc. In the next one, it will be cyber.
We have opened a direct line for all of our enemies to be able to attack us without any regard to geography whatsoever. Critical infrastructure is all online and barely protected by even the most basic security. We’ve already seen multiple utilities go down due to hacks, and those were probably accidents where the attackers were overzealous. It’s not unreasonable to assume that we’re already completely pwned, with foreign interests just sitting back and waiting for the right time to flip a switch.
Military and geographical advantages are irrelevant in this scenario.
I see oddity of article in comparing America to Portugal, France, Soviet, and Britain as well. The unique and original system of Democracy and Repbulicanism that have continuously forced politicians to innovate further protects America from collapsing, unlike China and its virtual dictatorship.
America will not collapse, it will become less relevant. The multipolar world is going to be more prominent going forward. Even France's Macron is talking about making EU independent of US influence. And with emerging country like India already having a DNA of non-alignment, it looks like the US will have a say in global world order but the influence will be far more limited than what it use to be.
Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world. One thing I agreed with Trump policy was this inward-looking aspect - no more stupid wars, no more pulling the weight of NATO and no more nation building in ME. Note that these policies were bipartisan - Bushes and Clintons/Obama supported them and spun the military industrial complex slot machine. What Trump did was very much in the stark contrast to the classic liberal/conservative stance of US foreign policy. Essentially a more lucid version of Ron Paul.
> Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world.
Unfair share? Based on what? The spending is directly correlated to USA's interests, there is no nanny-ing or "good will" going on, it's a matter of purely international interests. Looking at this with the patronising "unfair share" is a bit preposterous.
I'd say it's pretty unfair to a lot of countries being forced under the sphere of influence of the US to be continuously subjugated, through foreign policy or direct meddling in internal affairs, like the whole of Latin America. That is really fucking unfair.
OP completely missing the point why US is spending so much money on military. US doesn't care about ANYONE but US. All moves and "nannying" is strategical in nature and to US benefit.
Nanny as in defense pacts and treaties with other nations, which is why the MIC is sustained. It’s a strategic tool. Selling defense equipment is big business.
> Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world.
Do you really believe the US has been doing that selflessly?
I mean, it's OK to no longer want to be an imperialistic nation. The feeling I get from people with that kind of message, though, is that they usually don't want to lose the benefits of being hegemonic. They just don't want to pay the upkeep for it.
"unfair" is, in my view, the wrong way to frame it. It's a question of cost/benefit analysis. Does the US, by virtue of its effective global military presence, gain more through spending and maintaining it, in order to protect allies and its own interests, even if said allies fail to contribute a "fair" amount? (Whatever that may mean)
A loss of military hegemony will most likely reduce the US's global political and economic role as other countries move to fill that void or take advantage of the absence (China, Russia, at present). The net effect will likely be a shrinking of the US economy in the end, and not growth or even sustainment.
It's difficult to imagine Trump as "a more lucid version" of anyone? One would expect Rep. Paul could talk more intelligently than Pres. Trump on pretty much any topic, with the possible exception of USA corporate bankruptcy law.
With respect to the substance of your comment, sure, Trump talked a good game about stopping the stupid wars. He just never got around to actually doing that.
The book "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail" by Ray Dalio compares the rise (and decline) of the American "world empire" to prior world empires. The two most recent are the U.K. and the Netherlands.
The same things that are happening now have happened before -- just not in our lifetimes. The history and his analysis is quite instructive.
The book was refreshing in its objectivity, lack of political bias, and clarity of writing. I've given copies to several friends.
It's pretty clear from his analysis and the data that the U.S. is in a decline of global influence.
> The book "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail" by Ray Dalio compares the rise (and decline) of the American "world empire" to prior world empires.
Why should I put much stock in historical analysis done by a "American billionaire investor and hedge fund manager" [1]? My gut feel that someone like that probably has so much other stuff on his plate that the analysis would be in many ways superficial, and such a person likely has enough status that large numbers of people would indulge his pretensions at being a polymath even if it's not actually true.
Ahh the early days of clickbait. I wonder if the author was hoping to stop the demise or just wanted to be able to scream "see I told you so!" as the world burns.
i bet lunch that as soon as the author pressed the publish button they wrote another article under a different name title "Click to find out how that other guy is wrong and America won't collapse in 2025"
>After years of swelling deficits fed by incessant warfare in distant lands, in 2020, as long expected, the U.S. dollar finally loses its special status as the world's reserve currency. Suddenly, the cost of imports soars. Unable to pay for swelling deficits by selling now-devalued Treasury notes abroad, Washington is finally forced to slash its bloated military budget.
It's funny and interesting that the military budget is such a common punching bag. The defense budget is a pretty small percentage of the overall outlays. Yet people continue to act like it's the single line item that is holding America back.
Here's where the American federal government spent money in 2020.
* $1T on unemployment compensation and paycheck protection program
* $1.1T on social security
* $1.2T on medicare and medicaid
* $1T on "other" which includes federal employee retirements and welfare programs
* $900B on non-defense discretionary spending on thing such as housing assistance, transportation, and education.
...and then, finally, we get to defense spending at $700B.
The budget deficit for FY2020 was $3.1T. Maybe the military budget is so high it is causing a ripple in the multiverse that makes arithmetic different in this universe. Maybe if we cut $300B from the military budget in our universe it will even out to $3T because magic.
In 2019 the defense budget would have been #3 on your list, under only Social Security and Medicare + Medicaid. Perhaps using a pandemic year with extra outlays to avoid economic collapse is not the best way to discuss overall government spending.
In typical years the Defense spending is equal to each of the discretionary non-defense spending and "other" mandatory spending which excludes Medicare + Medicaid and Social Security. Medicare + Medicaid and Social Security spending have certainly increased the most and that seems to be inline with the increased spending on health care over the last few decades.
It's also worth noting that the non-defense categories still include defense related spending like veterans' income security, benefits, and services.
> ...and then, finally, we get to defense spending at $700B.
just a small reminder that $700B is less than the bank bailout of 2008/2009 which straddled both a Republican and Democrat president. That's in the top 5 most outrageous things in my lifetime (so far).
what you conveniently left out was that its only less by $100B (also one time vs recurring). Secondly it happened at the hand of a republican president and the democrat had to clean up the mess made by republican as always. one more thing the bank bailout was absolutely necessary if you did not want economy to collapse into a depression but none of the conservatives ever talk about all the banking deregulation (like graham beach leahy & glass stegal) that actually led to the conditions where financial system became so fragile that it had to be bailed out. Also, Govt actually made money on the TARP bailout after the funds were mostly returned.
Those figures are required expenditures, not budgets. They represent agreements between tax-paying citizens/employees and the government. The military's funding is variable and not required - the Constitution doesn't even support a centralized military. You're equating very different things.
> the Constitution doesn't even support a centralized military
Yes, it does. It just says that military appropriations for the Army have to be approved by Congress every two years. Congress controls the purse strings, the President has command.
Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy..."
Note that the Navy is not even subject to the two year limit on funding.
My wording is imprecise. You're right, what I suppose I meant to say was a standing centralized military. Those powers are to originally allow the funding of armies that are later disbanded, this attitude is also reflected in the 2nd amendment support of militias.
Navy was a different consideration at the time since it protects trade, which is required for commerce afaik.
No, I'm not. I specifically said spending and outlays. If you want to lawyer your way into a discretionary vs non-discretionary argument, have at it. I find it pointless in most scenarios, and especially in the context of this article.
In this hypothetical scenario where America can't borrow money or easily run a deficit, it won't matter at all whether a line item is discretionary or non-discretionary. Cutting the military budget won't magically help anything.
I lol'd at this oil analysis. The author had no idea what technological developments would be widely deployed in just the next couple years after they wrote this
>The author had no idea what technological developments would be widely deployed in just the next couple years after they wrote this
None of the technological developments created since then [2010] are able to mitigate an oil shock of the kind described in the article given their current deployment levels.
Actually, not even any developments that might be created in the next 5-10 years, in the level that they can be applied within the next 15 years would solve such an issue.
> None of the technological developments created since then [2010] are able to mitigate an oil shock of the kind described in the article given their current deployment levels.
May I suggest the combination of hydraulic fracturing with centimeter-precise horizontal drilling allowing oil producers (many of whom are badly run, granted) to access massive crude and natural gas resources previously unreachable?
Almost immediately after the article was written, US oil production hockey-sticked up to the point we were a net exporter of oil starting in 2020. The Salon analysis is actually hilarious against what actually happened.
This energy miracle may be a bit of a short lived illusion. The shift to fracking also resulted in a much lower EROEI (energy return on energy invested). Quote from [1]:
> Two aspects of shale production make it radically different from conventional production. First, it takes a lot more energy (including many miles of steel tubing per well, for example) to extract energy out of these wells. Traditional wells have a ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of 10- or 20-to-one, or an energy cost factor of 5 to 10%. The EROEI with fracking is in the range of 5- or 10-to-one, or a cost factor of 10 to 20%
The oil from fracking also runs out very quickly. From the same article:
> A conventional well’s production declines at about 5-8% per year, and it can remain productive for decades. By contrast, the first-year decline in shale wells is over 60%, and about 90% of a well’s production occurs in the first five years. That creates a "drilling treadmill," as new wells are needed simply to replace production from wells drilled a few years before.
I think this type of response should referred to as, "Refutation By Irrelevance".
In this case, Person A claimed that X will happen by Y date and Person B proved that literally the opposite happened by Y date.
Your response is to say that it may not be true by Z date. Which is all fine and good but not the point. It didn't help that you offered as proof a link to a web site that states it is "focused on the environment, social justice, indigenous rights and travel" that has an obvious bias against the thing that it is criticizing.
I wasn't trying to refute anything. I was just providing some context about the economics of fracking that I believed to be interesting to other HN readers.
Similar remarks have also been made by people in the oil and gas industry, it's not just an environmentalist meme:
> the technology that enables unconventional oil and gas production resulted in a 4-fold increase in oil and gas drilling costs from 2003 to 2014
>I think this type of response should referred to as, "Refutation By Irrelevance". In this case, Person A claimed that X will happen by Y date and Person B proved that literally the opposite happened by Y date.
Or, you know, person A predicted something, and person B managed to avoid it by a kludgy short-lived workaround (that makes things worse, e.g. raises the price of gas to $3+ from it's 2014 price to now), and now people act as A's prediction is not a problem anymore because they want to believe...
Given that the US is now a net oil exporter, an oil shock scenario is pretty much off the table. Moving to EVs is going to take so much oil demand off the table that it's pretty much a non issue going forward too.
>Moving to EVs is going to take so much oil demand off the table that it's pretty much a non issue going forward too.
And yet the gas price is higher it's been since 2014 or so.
And "moving to EVs", with 280 million conventional cars in the USA atm, ain't gonna happen in any large degree for the next 10-15 years. EVs (including hybrids) are less than 4% of current annual sales, and all-electric are half that. That's even assuming there was the production capacity, battery materials availability, network, etc for this to happen - which includes several breakthroughs or handwaving micacles.
Gas, like all commodities, create their own business cycles. You don't want to compare spot prices, you want to compare trends. As a counterpoint, I could say "2 years ago, gas was cheaper than it had been since 2006"
this is not even remotely true, the only reason US is a net oil exporter is because combination of high oil prices & cheap money has created an artificial support environment where unprofitable stuff like shale oil can survive. take some of these factors out and add demand destruction (even as low as 5%) from EVs and you are back to wildly fluctuating oil prices with no end in sight because every year the problem will be incrementally worse.
if there is one takeaway from all this it is there are very few oil producers that are profitab;e above $50/bbl and US ain't one of them.
isn't not being dependent on fossil fuels the goal? If EVs cause demand destruction for oil then that's good no? The more oil left unburned the better, i thought that was the point all along.
who cares about wildly fluctuating oil prices if your country is no longer dependent on oil.
Oh I strongly agree about need of moving away from oil, I was just addressing the oil shock remarks parent made. I do worry about the compensatory behavior in non-ev addressed markets (like aviation, energy, food etc) just because oil prices are temporarily low after EV demand destruction. this is why I feel its best to start removing all fossil subsidies at the first chance we get because we may not want a distorted price signal to exist for any longer than it has to.
...and yet, those developments seem to have had little effect on the geopolitical situation. Everyone who tries to predict the future in this level of detail will have some misses, and it's always a bit too easy to criticize others' predictions. The question is whether their broader conclusions hold up better than mere guesswork, and I'd say this author did pretty well.
> and yet, those developments seem to have had little effect on the geopolitical situation
I beg to differ. Two years ago the Saudis and the Russians got in a bad spat where the Russians decided they wanted to bankrupt US natural gas producers and the Saudis decided to bankrupt the Russians
A good portion of this article dealt with energy security. The US producing a ton of oil dramatically changed energy security. And I was specifically responding to the claim that US oil production has not had a geopolitical impact. It demonstrably has
This is particularly timely after the Taliban routed the US in Afghanistan in May to August of last year.
An interesting thing here is the central role played by energy in this analysis; this article was before the fracking boom (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:US_Crude_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbert_Upper-Bound_Peak_..., which shows the US fracking boom, though not the recent decline) and before the last factor of 8 or so decrease in the cost of solar panels made them cheaper than fossil fuels in much of the world. So it predicts Iran and Russia will be "energy kingpins" in 02025, which doesn't really seem to be in the cards.
Maybe China will be an "energy kingpin"—it could cover the Gobi with PV panels and run HVDC, which might be outside the state capacity of countries like Perú, Saudi, and Libya which control vast desert territories on paper. But, so far, despite installing more PV capacity than the entire rest of the world, China's PV capacity factor is a disappointing 13%, compared to 29% in California, so it's apparently making terrible choices about where to site its solar farms. (Still better than the 10% you get in Germany or the Netherlands.)
For the last 2500 years the "world's reserve currency" has been gold, except for the last 77 or so. That could easily happen again. Bitcoin was kind of gunning for that position, but China's thoroughgoing rejection of it forecloses that possibility for at least a generation, and Bitcoin could easily cease to exist in that time.
Although the knowledge of this article's author about computer security seems to come from Hollywood, the computer security situation is indeed extremely grave, and as more and more things become digital, any state that doesn't take it seriously and take effective measures to improve the situation is likely to be destroyed. Presently, that means every state in the world.
It's true that when financial and military collapse comes, they are likely to come very quickly.
I'm still a little bit confident in the system, though.
Because in 2026, Dem will win back both congress and senate, it's just a normal pattern. Voters never liked any party owns it all.
Two parties keep playing this along the way, except each game are so close these days, it's tiring and boring and hard to advance any agenda when either one is in control.
The system is getting close to deadlock when both sides no longer honor the game rule: "debate before the election, work together after it and just wait for your next turn". Instead it's now about fighting every day, it does not matter who won the election anymore. The end result?
"Nothing Got Done(tm)"
In that sense, it's not because China is doing better, it's because US's internal problem stops itself, and may bring it down.
that's just fear mongering though, in 2008 the Republicans said Obama was the antichrist and would declare himself dictator for life ffs. And before that, the Democrats said the same about Bush, "he's going to cancel elections, declare himself dictator, and use 9/11 and the thread of terrorism as the justification!"
except after obama terms democrats didn't go on a insurrectionist rampage through the capitol with ARs and zipties while obama/biden were simultaneously cheering on. neither did dems have the audacity to send out fake election certifications just because. 'Both Sides' are not the same!
> the GOP will establish an autocracy for decades.
do you just mean win elections for decades? That i can sort of believe (or at least comprehend), but wholesale destruction of Democracy? To me, that means canceling elections and the president declaring themself absolute power for life which i just don't see happening. I would expect a military coup before that since the military swears allegiance to the constitution first and then civilian leadership next.
"Conservative" literally means "averse to change" so of course they will always unify around a set of traditional beliefs.
The Democratic party has a harder time "unifying" because it's more accepting of change, but there is a wide spectrum of tolerance around how much and when people adapt to rapidly changing social and fiscal policies. Ultimately I think there is unification, but there's lag time for everyone to catch up and be on the same wavelength; a lag time of years, sometimes decades. This gives the perception of a disorganized party, but realistically it's more complicated than that.
In this case, the Republican party is objectively authoritarian - and arguably neofascist. For all of the faults of the Democrats (and there are many) they are not actively hammering on the foundations of Democracy. Their leader did not just attempt to overthrow an election. They aren't actively undermining the ability to vote, or trying to put corrupt officials in place who will overthrow elections that don't go their way. The Republicans have done or are doing all of these things.
That's not what he said. It doesn't matter which party wins. The issue would be if representatives of any party end democracy, which he outlined in short how it could be done - and some of the representatives of the "other party" have expressed real interest in performing those actions.
If that happens, the democrats only have themselves to blame at this point. Biden came in with a 60+% approval rating, now he is in the high 20s / low 30s.
I actually think it's more likely that a third party like Andrew Yangs Forward Party emerges and wins an election. A lot of people are sick of two options, and feel alienated in by their own party (both sides)
Not sure why you think Ron desantis qualifies as an authoritarian. Also you admit the GOP will win the elections and Biden is a loser. Sounds pretty democratic. Predicting that the republican majority will inevitably establish an autocracy is birther level Dem propaganda. You shouldn't watch MSNBC.
I believed it until China started scoring own goals kneecapping their tech industry and their best and brightest kept coming to the West... Someday though, my VEMAX investments will look like a good decision.
One of America's secret sauces is that everyone in the world is welcome to defect from their home regime and come here. Hell, there's even a chance we'll make your children our leaders (Obama and Harris for example). And you personally have a chance to start a business and become a billionaire or advance up the corporate ladder to CEO of existing giants.
The inverse is not true.
The best and brightest Americans (regardless of race) can never effectively defect to China. Maybe if you're ethnically Han Chinese your children will have a chance to be fully integrated and accepted, but definitely not if you're any other race.
The gravity of best and brightest migration is still one way into the American singularity.
Exactly. China is very deliberately not allowing the ad-click business to divert talent from more strategic sectors. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, acceptable or not in the sense of market freedom, it's a rational move.
My counterpoint is that you can make a rational decision and still be wrong. Ad click business is how they can build a facial recognition database of 3 billion people, and China is uniquely positioned to immediately apply that dataset to training ML with military applications.
It's absolutely possible to be rational and yet wrong. It's also entirely possible to promote or allow something for a while and then decide it has finished serving its purpose.
> It's absolutely possible to be rational and yet wrong. It's also entirely possible to promote or allow something for a while and then decide it has finished serving its purpose.
Yeah. Also, generalizations can be true but misleading in a particular instance. I think a lot of people make that mistake with China, assuming because in general democracies have been more successful than autocracies [1], they can be complacent because China will fail. There's no reason autocracy with a talented leader (or one who's lucky) can outperform a democracy.
[1] People also often say that free markets are "more successful" than less free markets, and it's probably true to an extent, but there's also a lot of problems/disagreement defining what "success is." For instance, the US has traded away a lot of its general manufacturing capacity leading to more "success" by some financial metrics but failure by many others.
Why is the Hacker News title editorialized? I believe the convention is to use the original title of the linked article. Removing the "how" from the sentence changes the tone by quite a margin.
Empires all do end and when they do they often fracture because of a built up of social discontent, but they are predicted to be ending 1000x more often than they end. Eventually someone calls it correctly though, and generally you only know who in hindsight.
It's like predicting someone's death: undoubtedly one day that person will die, it's just quite hard to predict it accurately. As devil in a certain book jested, "Yes, the man is mortal, but that's half the trouble; it's that he sometimes is abruptly mortal, that's the trick!"
The collapse of the USSR in 1991 came as quite the shock to everyone, including both the Soviets themselves, nevermind the Americans. Yes, the West have been spelling "doom and gloom" for the USSR since November of 1917 and yet it never came to pass... until one day, it suddenly did. And BTW, spelling the imminent doom of the Russian Empire too has been quite in vogue in Europe during the XIX century, and still it came in as quite a surprise to everyone in 1917.
The USSR had alternate models to move to. What alternate model does the US have? The only ones that are somewhat successful are Russian and Chinese style authoritarianism, neither of which are palatable to the US population.
Since before day one. Jefferson supported the former while Hamilton supported the later. This disagreement lead to the first political parties inside of GW's administration. This led to a dire warning in his farewell address:
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
The take away isn't to always listen, but to not always exaggerate/lie. The reader never got impacted by the wolves, the speaker did. So in the end, maybe the ones impacted will be the media, not the readers.
America won't collapse alone, the whole Western block will collapse with it, our civilization already died, the moment we decided stock market is more important than the education and health of our people
Greed, gluttony, spread of cancerous culture, lack of social justice and many more
